Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: are you from the past (Score 0) 105

There's always a "I use a feature phone who needs a smartphone" grouch or two whenever a smartphone-related story comes out and I'm starting to believe that they are unaware that many people see their smartphone as a small computer more than as a phone, so I figured I'd make it clear for them.

So instead of congratulating? me why don't you chime in.

Comment DDM (Score 1) 126

I can't find an exact link but the experiment was in relation with the "Dynamic decision making" topic.

There is a famous experiment/game called "The beer distribution game":

Here's what an expert in this field concluded:

Subjects generate large amplitude oscillations with stable phase and gain relationships among the variables. [...] Analysis shows the subjects fall victim to several 'misperceptions of feedback' identified in prior experimental studies of dynamic decisionmaking. Specifically, they fail to account for control actions which have been initiated but not yet had their effect. More subtle, subjects are insensitive to the presence of feedback from their decisions to the environment
and attribute the dynamics to exogenous variables, leading their normative efforts away from the source of difficulty.

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 0, Troll) 359

You can't win with the Church of Global Warming.

For instance, here's what one can find in the Wikipedia article for the book "Physics for Future Presidents":

It criticizes those who distort the facts, especially with regards to climate change. “Global warming is real," Muller writes. "It is very likely caused by humans.”

And yet, anyone who has actually read the book (which I did) will tell you that while the author does explain the evidence behind global warming, the ones he criticizes the most for distorting the facts are Al Gore and the hockey stick guy. He explains in details all the lies and dishonest representations made by those people and insists that using what is basically FUD is not a winning strategy to raise awareness about global warming because once people find out that they've been duped, this will cause a huge backlash. But of cours that's not what the Wikipedia entry make it look like.

Comment Re:Says them (Score 2) 126

Years ago there was a fascinating study/experiment. They would put the subject in charge of maintaining the temperature of a room within a specific range, and the only action the person could do would be to press a button to cause an increase or decrease of the temperature; they could press as often as they wanted, but the change would only occur 5 minutes later. What happened? Basically everyone failed, consistently overcompensating one way or the other when they would see the temperature go up or down based on decisions made 5 minutes earlier. The more it went, the more people used the button, and they only made things worse.

Same thing would happen with this kind of solution. Decisions take time to be implemented, and by the time the side effects are known, more decisions are already in the pipeline.

For instance when you start sending traffic in local streets, local people react; they leave earlier or later, causing changes in the rush hour patterns. Or they fight back, getting the local authorities to convert one-ways to two-ways, or to reverse traffic flow. Thru traffic is slowed down, this causes new bottlenecks, sending more cars on other streets. Rinse and repeat. And while this happens does the computer model take the big picture into account? No, it keeps rerouting people in a progressively more frantic way until the whole area is a gridlock.

Comment Re:Says them (Score 2) 126

Maybe instead of hiding behind insults you can explain how a simulation qualifies as "beating the world's worst traffic"?

See, history keeps showing over and over and over and over (etc) that men are unable to make accurate simulations of complex systems. Case in point: LTCM, which had two Nobel prize winners and the former head of the biggest bond trading desk on its board. They went bust. That was in 1998, and obviously people don't learn because the same kind of shit happened 10 years later. And seeing how the idiots at the Fed are driving the economy into the ground, soon we'll probably have another documented example.

The point here is that those traffic guys didn't beat nothing. All they did was a thought experiment that, if implemented (which will never happen) will at best cause more traffic problems. Ergo: useless.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford