Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:AI does what AI is programmed to do (Score 1) 158

The "DANGER of AI" is that the AI will be somebody's bitch. Whose?

AI is "merely" another form of power, and adversaries-who-have-power are always a threat. Don't worry about AI; you should worry about $THEM getting AI, thereby causing $THEM to have an edge over you.

100.0% of techs are just like this. When you're pointing your nuclear missile at someone else, it's good. When someone else is pointing one at you, it's bad.

Comment Re:As someone with a masters in this -exact field- (Score 2) 236

Well, I heard an anecdote about Einstein many years ago - he was writing one of his articles about GR and wanted to make it understandable to the general public, so he read it to his granddaughter (or something like that), who was only about 5 years old, thinking, if she can understand it, then of course everybody else would as well. And, amazingly, this young child, who was playing happily with her stuff while listening to her nice graddad, would yes "Yes" every time he asked if she understood what had read out. I think it is a very sweet story ;-)

Another saying that I have seen attributed to Einsteing is, that you should always strive to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. GR is a good example of this - it is a remarkably simple and elegant theory, and you really couldn't make it simpler; but it is still bloody complicated, not least because the toolset required (differential geometry on a smooth manifold with a Lorentzian metric as well as a volume form) is rather complicated in itself. C++, I suppose, compared to C, is like GR compared to Newtonian Mechanics; it gets really, really crinkly around the edges, not because the idea is unsound, but the subject just is that complicated, when you pursue it - and you can't make it simpler without losing important bits.

Comment Re: Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score 1) 457

This has probably less to do with where I live and more to do with the thicker walls on my current house compared to the house I grew up in.

So, given that we don't see any citations around, let's pit anecdotes against each other. In my experience, birds only ever fly into stationary, opaque objects, if they are ill or so young that they still haven't mastered all the details of landing on a twig. I have lived in the countryside for a few decades as well as in the city, I have spent a fair bit of time outdoors and I have had bird hit my windows from time to time. Of course, in Europe we tend to build farms out of stone or bricks, so it would have to be an ostrich for us to hear it, but even so, you would expect to find them occasionally. I suspect, if you have been hearing something go bump against your farm house, it might just easily have been something else, such as a rat making a noise on the roof or whatever - if it happened all that often, people probably wouldn't come running outside every time to make sure that this was in fact a bird. The thing is - if you sit inside what is effectively a big wooden box, then it is quite hard to tell exactly where a noise comes from, but it makes for a good anecdote to decide it's a bird: "Oh those birds out here, its like a hail storm".

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): buoys, CCI (satellite), and all three Argo near-SST datasets. Figure 4 subtracts all those datasets from each composite SST record, then calculates the trend. If a differenced trend includes "zero" inside its 95% confidence interval, scientists say that particular instrument's trend agrees with that particular composite SST record's trend at the 95% confidence level.

For both examined timespans, buoys and CCI agree with ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level, and disagree with all the other composite SST records. The H2008 Argo dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because it shows more warming than all composite SST records, although ERSSTv4 is the closest match. The APDRC Argo dataset agrees with ERSSTv4 and COBE-SST. The RG2009 Argo dataset (which Lonny wrongly claims they "ignored") is in fact the last dataset shown in figure 4. RG2009 agrees with all four composite SST records at the 95% confidence level. That's what Hausfather et al. meant when they said RG2009 is "more ambiguous".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Presumably Lonny's "new contrived data set" is ERSSTv4, which Jane/Lonny has complained about ad nauseam. Look at figure 4 again. Buoys and CCI satellite datasets agree with ERSSTv4. The Argo APDRC and RG2009 datasets agree with ERSSTv4, but they also agree with other composite SST records so those results are more ambiguous. The Argo H2008 dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because H2008 shows more warming than all of them including ERSSTv4, though ERSSTv4 is the best match.

In other words, they didn't ignore any data, and most of the data matches ERSSTv4. In fact, the RG2009 dataset which Lonny wrongly claims they "simply don't use" is "more ambiguous" precisely because it does match ERSSTv4 (and all the other tested composite SST records). The Argo H2008 dataset is the only one which doesn't have a trend matching ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level (because H2008 shows more warming than ERSSTv4) and it also shows that ERSSTv4 is a closer match than any other tested composite SST record.

That really is what they did, though. As I described. They transformed data in ways that are not 100% clear. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No, what Lonny described really isn't what Hausfather et al. 2017 did. In fact, it's hard to imagine how Lonny's description could have been more wrong. See above. Or just read the paper to see that they didn't ignore data and made their methodology 100% clear by making their code freely available.

I find it amusing that climate scientists are prone to argue "surface temp. records are better than satellite". But then claim that the satellite record is "better" than ARGO floats. Just as they did with satellites, climate scientists crowed about their new ARGO floats. "Best thing ever." Then, just like satellites, when the new data does not fit their preconceptions, they just omit it. That has been a very noticeable pattern in the field of climate science. ... a pattern of behavior is a pattern of behavior. Always excuses to omit inconvenient data. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Lonny's delusional narrative where "scientists crowed" about satellite data before "omitting" them is completely baseless. And even though he probably won't ever admit it, deep down Lonny should realize that his new delusional narrative about Hausfather et al. "omitting" data was also just shown to be completely baseless.

Again, Lonny's just projecting. Jane/Lonny previously cited ocean heat content (OHC) measurements based on Argo and satellite data until I showed him that those data doesn't support his incorrect claims that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years. For years, Lonny has shown a pattern of behavior where he ignores the "best measure" of global warming: OHC data from Argo which reveal ~90% of Earth's added heat. Maybe Lonny omits those data because they don't fit his preconceptions?

Comment YES. (Score 1) 199

Because until we get unmolested pure android OS installs that allow us to remove all baked in crap the Carriers and phone makers try and sneak in there, Android users will need a way to get a smooth and clean Android experience.

Windows

Microsoft Targets Chrome Users With Windows 10 Pop-up Ad (pcmag.com) 171

Google Chrome users on Windows 10 are apparently being treated to a new experience: a pop-up ad. From a PCMag report: If you have Chrome installed and the icon present on the Windows Taskbar, chances are you're going to start seeing a pop-up advert appear suggesting you install Microsoft's Personal Shopping Assistant Chrome extension. Microsoft touts it as "Your smart shopping cart across the web." Opting to install the extension results in Microsoft monitoring which products you've searched for and viewed while using Chrome, and then offering to compare those products to find the best price. There's also alerts when prices change, and the ability to track products across all your devices. Of course, Microsoft will make money if you opt to purchase any products using the Assistant.
Democrats

Donald Trump Is Sworn In As the 45th US President (reuters.com) 1527

Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday, succeeding Barack Obama and taking control of a divided country in a transition of power that he has declared will lead to "America First" policies at home and abroad. Reuters reports: As scattered protests erupted elsewhere in Washington, Trump raised his right hand and put his left on a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln and repeated a 35-word oath of office from the U.S. Constitution, with U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presiding.

Comment Re:What happens to ZFS? (Score 1) 122

I'm only guessing, but I doubt Oracle will simply kill off Solaris - there is a lot of good stuff in there, and they do, among other things, sell a ZFS based disk appliance, as far as I remember. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that runs Solaris. But I think the market for proprietary UNIXes as general OSes is all but finished, since the open source ones are now so good.

Comment Re:Daily dose (Score 2, Insightful) 66

The existence of technology requires science, unless you're talking about the simple tool use we share with other animals, and - brace yourself for this - climate change is and area of science, it really is. Climate scientists, unlike climate change deniers - follow the facts, even when they don't please them by confirming their hopes. Climate change deniers, on the other hand, reject all data that they don't like, no matter how strong, while accepting even the most tenuous hint that offers them comfort. Who is most likely to get to the truth?

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming — zero — for 18 years! [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-06]

Nonsense. The Earth continues to warm. I'd already told Jane/Lonny Eachus that his very ironic accusation is wrong. I'd even shared code and data showing that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

But more importantly, I'd also already told Jane/Lonny that ~90% of Earth's added heat goes into ocean heat content (OHC) measured by Argo, etc. Why are Lonny Eachus and "FriendsOScience" ignoring the fact that OHC keeps rising when they keep wrongly claiming that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years? Are they ignoring Argo data because Argo data show that Earth continues to warm, which doesn't agree with their preconceptions?

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced. - John Keats

Working...