Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Warning: VOZ built sysadmins, lusers
103 views
Skip to first unread message
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 11, 2011, 2:14:15 AM12/11/11
to
Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1 billion
neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food, fight, flight,
and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of 256 neurons, 262,000
programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning synapses. Now they are planning
augmentation with Von Neumann machine to improve reasoning capability of the
hardware.
Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger
of mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from BOFH and
LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers and *against*
the sysadmins at the same time.
That was the warning, but to further infuriate some nauseating adolescents,
here is the reference:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/12/09/cognitive-computing-when-computers-become-brains/
WD
--
Who is Entscheidungs and what is his problem?
neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food, fight, flight,
and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of 256 neurons, 262,000
programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning synapses. Now they are planning
augmentation with Von Neumann machine to improve reasoning capability of the
hardware.
Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger
of mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from BOFH and
LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers and *against*
the sysadmins at the same time.
That was the warning, but to further infuriate some nauseating adolescents,
here is the reference:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/12/09/cognitive-computing-when-computers-become-brains/
WD
--
Who is Entscheidungs and what is his problem?
Lionel
Dec 11, 2011, 6:58:02 AM12/11/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:14:15 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1
> billion neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food, fight,
> flight, and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of 256
> neurons, 262,000 programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning synapses.
> Now they are planning augmentation with Von Neumann machine to improve
> reasoning capability of the hardware.
>
> Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger of
> mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from BOFH and
> LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers and
> *against* the sysadmins at the same time.
Pfft. And who do you think is going to cop the job of running & debugging
> Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1
> billion neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food, fight,
> flight, and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of 256
> neurons, 262,000 programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning synapses.
> Now they are planning augmentation with Von Neumann machine to improve
> reasoning capability of the hardware.
>
> Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger of
> mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from BOFH and
> LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers and
> *against* the sysadmins at the same time.
these things? (HINT: Not the managers or the programmers.)
--
W
. | , w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^---^---------------------------------------------------------------
Just zis Guy, you know?
Dec 11, 2011, 8:58:39 AM12/11/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Lionel <imag...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:14:15 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>
>> Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1
>> billion neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food, fight,
>> flight, and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of 256
>> neurons, 262,000 programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning synapses.
>> Now they are planning augmentation with Von Neumann machine to improve
>> reasoning capability of the hardware.
>>
>> Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger of
>> mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from BOFH and
>> LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers and
>> *against* the sysadmins at the same time.
>
>Pfft. And who do you think is going to cop the job of running & debugging
>these things? (HINT: Not the managers or the programmers.)
If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
And then they go wrong, and the entire universe ends up searching for
the last surviving Monk, who either saves the universe or tells them
to accommodate it where the sun doesn't shine (if the two are indeed
different).
Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:14:15 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>
>> Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1
>> billion neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food, fight,
>> flight, and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of 256
>> neurons, 262,000 programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning synapses.
>> Now they are planning augmentation with Von Neumann machine to improve
>> reasoning capability of the hardware.
>>
>> Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger of
>> mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from BOFH and
>> LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers and
>> *against* the sysadmins at the same time.
>
>Pfft. And who do you think is going to cop the job of running & debugging
>these things? (HINT: Not the managers or the programmers.)
will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
And then they go wrong, and the entire universe ends up searching for
the last surviving Monk, who either saves the universe or tells them
to accommodate it where the sun doesn't shine (if the two are indeed
different).
Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
Shmuel Metz
Dec 11, 2011, 8:56:36 AM12/11/11
to
In <slrnje8m27...@um5000.mystora.com>, on 12/11/2011
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
at 07:14 AM, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:
>the four Fs : food, fight, flight, and mating.
I recall a somewhat more cynical version, leaving out your first 3.
>the four Fs : food, fight, flight, and mating.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Alan J Rosenthal
Dec 11, 2011, 10:35:34 AM12/11/11
to
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:
>>the four Fs : food, fight, flight, and mating.
>
>I recall a somewhat more cynical version, leaving out your first 3.
"The four Fs: fucking, fucking, fucking, and fucking."
>Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:
>>the four Fs : food, fight, flight, and mating.
>
>I recall a somewhat more cynical version, leaving out your first 3.
??
Or would that be: "The four Fs: fucking."
??
In either case, I really just don't see it.
-- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
Peter H. Coffin
Dec 11, 2011, 11:16:07 AM12/11/11
to
On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
--
It's not hard, it's just asking for a visit by the fuckup fairy.
-- Peter da Silva
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 11, 2011, 12:20:01 PM12/11/11
to
On 2011-12-11, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>
> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
>
And Spanish Inquisition.
> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>
> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
>
Paul
Dec 11, 2011, 12:45:38 PM12/11/11
to
Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote in
news:slrnje9pi1...@um5000.mystora.com:
> On 2011-12-11, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>>
>> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
>>
> And Spanish Inquisition.
Well, I didn't expect that.
--
Paul the Legacy Server
Full Recovery reached May 30, 2008
"People can be educated beyond their intelligence"
-- Marilyn vos Savant
news:slrnje9pi1...@um5000.mystora.com:
> On 2011-12-11, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>>
>> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
>>
> And Spanish Inquisition.
--
Paul the Legacy Server
Full Recovery reached May 30, 2008
"People can be educated beyond their intelligence"
-- Marilyn vos Savant
The Python Police
Dec 11, 2011, 1:08:51 PM12/11/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:45:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul
<pssa...@comcast.net.INVALID> wrote:
>Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote in
>news:slrnje9pi1...@um5000.mystora.com:
>
>> On 2011-12-11, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>>>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>>>
>>> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
>>>
>> And Spanish Inquisition.
>
>Well, I didn't expect that.
Right, you're nicked.
<pssa...@comcast.net.INVALID> wrote:
>Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote in
>news:slrnje9pi1...@um5000.mystora.com:
>
>> On 2011-12-11, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>>>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>>>
>>> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
>>>
>> And Spanish Inquisition.
>
>Well, I didn't expect that.
--
The Python Police
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Erwan David
Dec 11, 2011, 2:48:42 PM12/11/11
to
Roger Burton West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> disait le 12/11/11 que :
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
>>will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
>
> Who was it who was claiming to have done that in the 1990s?
>
> And indeed in the 1980s? (Or was that "no programmers will be necessary
> because anyone can put together a program with our wonderful new
> language"? I forget.)
Cobol was maketed as the way for managers to do their own programs...
--
Le travail n'est pas une bonne chose. Si ça l'était,
les riches l'auraient accaparé
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
>>will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
>
>
> And indeed in the 1980s? (Or was that "no programmers will be necessary
> because anyone can put together a program with our wonderful new
> language"? I forget.)
Cobol was maketed as the way for managers to do their own programs...
--
Le travail n'est pas une bonne chose. Si ça l'était,
les riches l'auraient accaparé
Willem
Dec 11, 2011, 2:54:29 PM12/11/11
to
AdB wrote:
) Then there's the third option to the fight-or-flight reflex a FOAF
) discovered while fixing computers in the arctic: while crossing between
) buildings late one fine evening, the snowdrift he was passing got up on
) its hind legs and roared, turning out to be a very large polar bear.
) Fighting one with your bare hands is not on, trying to outrun it wasn't
) evolving as a plan hopeful of success either, and caught with no other
) options he stood there and involuntarily shat himself and stopped
) smelling edible, so the bear shambled off.
)
) So now it's fight, flight, or feces.
I think that would only work for certain kinds of people, on account of
their peculiar diet.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
) Then there's the third option to the fight-or-flight reflex a FOAF
) discovered while fixing computers in the arctic: while crossing between
) buildings late one fine evening, the snowdrift he was passing got up on
) its hind legs and roared, turning out to be a very large polar bear.
) Fighting one with your bare hands is not on, trying to outrun it wasn't
) evolving as a plan hopeful of success either, and caught with no other
) options he stood there and involuntarily shat himself and stopped
) smelling edible, so the bear shambled off.
)
) So now it's fight, flight, or feces.
I think that would only work for certain kinds of people, on account of
their peculiar diet.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Joe Thompson
Dec 11, 2011, 8:17:10 PM12/11/11
to
On 2011-12-11, Alan J Rosenthal <fl...@dgp.toronto.edu> wrote:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:
>>>the four Fs : food, fight, flight, and mating.
>>
>>I recall a somewhat more cynical version, leaving out your first 3.
>
> "The four Fs: fucking, fucking, fucking, and fucking."
> ??
>
> Or would that be: "The four Fs: fucking."
> ??
>
> In either case, I really just don't see it.
I get it, I think, in that the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:
>>>the four Fs : food, fight, flight, and mating.
>>
>>I recall a somewhat more cynical version, leaving out your first 3.
>
> "The four Fs: fucking, fucking, fucking, and fucking."
> ??
>
> Or would that be: "The four Fs: fucking."
> ??
>
> In either case, I really just don't see it.
would see the first three as relevant only in light of the fourth -- in
some sense, they are about the fourth more than about themselves. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Sysadmin - Scientificist
E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/
"There is no way my emacs is ever getting a credit card!" -- Matthew Vernon
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 12, 2011, 1:02:23 AM12/12/11
to
On 2011-12-12, Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> wrote:
> I get it, I think, in that the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
> would see the first three as relevant only in light of the fourth -- in
> some sense, they are about the fourth more than about themselves. -- Joe
That is my premise too. In other words: when did you stop fucking your
> I get it, I think, in that the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
> would see the first three as relevant only in light of the fourth -- in
> some sense, they are about the fourth more than about themselves. -- Joe
lusers? Please indicate their sex and gender if applicable.
BTW the article speaks about von Neumann computer rather than von Numann
probe as in self-replicating space exploration device
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 12, 2011, 2:07:03 AM12/12/11
to
On 2011-12-12, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
> That is my premise too. In other words: when did you stop fucking your
> lusers? Please indicate their sex and gender if applicable.
I'am sorry. That came out wrong. What I meant was that every mass produced
> That is my premise too. In other words: when did you stop fucking your
> lusers? Please indicate their sex and gender if applicable.
LUSER simulator, the production being a kind of asexual reproduction
incidentally, makes BOFH simulator more likely. I don't think they will
start with BOFH units, but here you are.
Mark Ayliffe
Dec 12, 2011, 3:37:36 AM12/12/11
to
On or about 2011-12-11,
Roger Burton West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> illuminated us with:
--
Mark
Real email address | One good thing about egotists is that they don't
is mark at | talk about other people.
ayliffe dot org |
Roger Burton West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> illuminated us with:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>
>>If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
>>will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
>
>>will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
>
> Who was it who was claiming to have done that in the 1990s?
>
> And indeed in the 1980s? (Or was that "no programmers will be necessary
> because anyone can put together a program with our wonderful new
> language"? I forget.)
Possibly the program generator known as The Last One?
>
> And indeed in the 1980s? (Or was that "no programmers will be necessary
> because anyone can put together a program with our wonderful new
> language"? I forget.)
--
Mark
Real email address | One good thing about egotists is that they don't
is mark at | talk about other people.
ayliffe dot org |
Lionel
Dec 12, 2011, 5:19:17 AM12/12/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:58:39 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Lionel <imag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:14:15 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1
>>> billion neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food,
>>> fight, flight, and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of
>>> 256 neurons, 262,000 programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning
>>> synapses. Now they are planning augmentation with Von Neumann machine
>>> to improve reasoning capability of the hardware.
>>>
>>> Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger
>>> of mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from
>>> BOFH and LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers
>>> and *against* the sysadmins at the same time.
>>
>>Pfft. And who do you think is going to cop the job of running &
>>debugging these things? (HINT: Not the managers or the programmers.)
>
> If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
> will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
Yeah sure, & I remember back in about '82 or so, when supposed 4GLs were
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Lionel <imag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:14:15 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1
>>> billion neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food,
>>> fight, flight, and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of
>>> 256 neurons, 262,000 programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning
>>> synapses. Now they are planning augmentation with Von Neumann machine
>>> to improve reasoning capability of the hardware.
>>>
>>> Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger
>>> of mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from
>>> BOFH and LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers
>>> and *against* the sysadmins at the same time.
>>
>>Pfft. And who do you think is going to cop the job of running &
>>debugging these things? (HINT: Not the managers or the programmers.)
>
> If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
> will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
going to put all programmers out of work too.
Lionel
Dec 12, 2011, 5:20:47 AM12/12/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:45:38 +0000, Paul wrote:
> Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote in
> news:slrnje9pi1...@um5000.mystora.com:
>
>> On 2011-12-11, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>>>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>>>
>>> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
>>>
>> And Spanish Inquisition.
>
> Well, I didn't expect that.
Well, who does?
> Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote in
> news:slrnje9pi1...@um5000.mystora.com:
>
>> On 2011-12-11, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>>>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>>>
>>> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
>>>
>> And Spanish Inquisition.
>
> Well, I didn't expect that.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 12, 2011, 7:05:08 AM12/12/11
to
On 2011-12-12, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:58:39 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Lionel <imag...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:14:15 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1
>>>> billion neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food,
>>>> fight, flight, and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of
>>>> 256 neurons, 262,000 programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning
>>>> synapses. Now they are planning augmentation with Von Neumann machine
>>>> to improve reasoning capability of the hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger
>>>> of mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from
>>>> BOFH and LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers
>>>> and *against* the sysadmins at the same time.
>>>
>>>Pfft. And who do you think is going to cop the job of running &
>>>debugging these things? (HINT: Not the managers or the programmers.)
>>
>> If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
>> will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
>
> Yeah sure, & I remember back in about '82 or so, when supposed 4GLs were
> going to put all programmers out of work too.
However, you have to ask yourself why they are still doing what looks
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:58:39 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Lionel <imag...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:14:15 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently VOZ Almaden laboratory successfully simulated a system of 1
>>>> billion neurons in 2009, albeit incapable of “the four Fs”: food,
>>>> fight, flight, and mating. Recently they built hardware simulator of
>>>> 256 neurons, 262,000 programmable synapses, and 65,000 learning
>>>> synapses. Now they are planning augmentation with Von Neumann machine
>>>> to improve reasoning capability of the hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger
>>>> of mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from
>>>> BOFH and LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers
>>>> and *against* the sysadmins at the same time.
>>>
>>>Pfft. And who do you think is going to cop the job of running &
>>>debugging these things? (HINT: Not the managers or the programmers.)
>>
>> If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
>> will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
>
> Yeah sure, & I remember back in about '82 or so, when supposed 4GLs were
> going to put all programmers out of work too.
suspiciously like AI-Complete problems. Not to put us all out of work,
at least not at first, since they are probably eyeing some lucrative
government contracts, but as I've been trying to say further down, the
simulation may eventually fit some job descriptions for humans.
As for "sci-fi", well, "I think you ought to know I'm feeling very
depressed,"
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
c...@nospam.netunix.com
Dec 12, 2011, 11:03:16 AM12/12/11
to
Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah sure, & I remember back in about '82 or so, when supposed 4GLs were
> going to put all programmers out of work too.
Ever the optimist, I am still waiting for my flying car and my fusion
>
> Yeah sure, & I remember back in about '82 or so, when supposed 4GLs were
> going to put all programmers out of work too.
power unit. The household robot that they promised would also be nice.
--
From the quill of Chris Newport g4jci.
djc
Dec 12, 2011, 11:30:12 AM12/12/11
to
On 11/12/11 19:48, Erwan David wrote:
> Roger Burton West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> disait le 12/11/11 que :
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>> If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
>>> will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
>>
>> Who was it who was claiming to have done that in the 1990s?
>>
>> And indeed in the 1980s? (Or was that "no programmers will be necessary
>> because anyone can put together a program with our wonderful new
>> language"? I forget.)
>
> Cobol was maketed as the way for managers to do their own programs...
The entire history of programming can be written around that theme:
> Roger Burton West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> disait le 12/11/11 que :
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>> If I remember my sci-fi references the argument goes that no sysadmins
>>> will be necessary because the systems are self-maintaining.
>>
>> Who was it who was claiming to have done that in the 1990s?
>>
>> And indeed in the 1980s? (Or was that "no programmers will be necessary
>> because anyone can put together a program with our wonderful new
>> language"? I forget.)
>
> Cobol was maketed as the way for managers to do their own programs...
$NEW_NOT_A PROGRAMMING_LANGUAGE makes programmers redundant; anyone can
understand the program etc.
$NEW_NOT_A PROGRAMMING_LANGUAGE doesn't do everything exactly as required.
$NEW_NOT_A PROGRAMMING_LANGUAGE is enhanced.
$NEW_NOT_A PROGRAMMING_LANGUAGE acquires expert users
$NEW_NOT_A PROGRAMMING_LANGUAGE == $PROGRAMMING_LANGUAGE
--
djc
Lionel
Dec 12, 2011, 2:20:45 PM12/12/11
to
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:03:16 +0000, crn wrote:
> Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah sure, & I remember back in about '82 or so, when supposed 4GLs
>> were going to put all programmers out of work too.
>
> Ever the optimist, I am still waiting for my flying car and my fusion
> power unit. The household robot that they promised would also be nice.
Bonus points if they build the latter into a ErnyQbyy,
> Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah sure, & I remember back in about '82 or so, when supposed 4GLs
>> were going to put all programmers out of work too.
>
> Ever the optimist, I am still waiting for my flying car and my fusion
> power unit. The household robot that they promised would also be nice.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 12, 2011, 3:19:59 PM12/12/11
to
On 2011-12-12, ab...@127.0.0.1 <ab...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> It does look, however, that snakes'n'trains might achieve what visual
> basic failed to and put all software injuners out of work. I'm certain
> that must have a downside somewhere.
In declarative programming? Hello everyone and welcome to our "spot the
program" competition:
No program is bug-free
This is a program
----------------------
It is bug-free
> It does look, however, that snakes'n'trains might achieve what visual
> basic failed to and put all software injuners out of work. I'm certain
> that must have a downside somewhere.
In declarative programming? Hello everyone and welcome to our "spot the
program" competition:
No program is bug-free
This is a program
----------------------
It is bug-free
Shmuel Metz
Dec 12, 2011, 11:30:34 AM12/12/11
to
In <jc3kmm$nnr$1...@xen1.xcski.com>, on 12/12/2011
would see the first, second and fourth as relevant only in light of
the third.
at 01:17 AM, Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> said:
>I get it, I think, in that the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>would see the first three as relevant only in light of the fourth
In the one I had in mind, the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>I get it, I think, in that the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>would see the first three as relevant only in light of the fourth
would see the first, second and fourth as relevant only in light of
the third.
Graham Reed
Dec 12, 2011, 4:17:06 PM12/12/11
to
ab...@127.0.0.1 writes:
> It does look, however, that snakes'n'trains might achieve what visual
> basic failed to and put all software injuners out of work. I'm certain
> that must have a downside somewhere.
Based on what I've seen of snakes code, the typical snake-wrangler has
> It does look, however, that snakes'n'trains might achieve what visual
> basic failed to and put all software injuners out of work. I'm certain
> that must have a downside somewhere.
not heard of the phrase, "failure mode".
If your injuneers haven't heard that phrase either, I don't know what
they really are, but they fundamentally aren't injuneers.
Title inflation: Just Choose to Indicate Unacceptance.
--
"...and 8 inches is really not that impressive."
-- Kari Byron, Mythbuster
Brian Kantor
Dec 12, 2011, 6:15:45 PM12/12/11
to
Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>No program is bug-free
>This is a program
>----------------------
>It is bug-free
Invoking the Shatner daemon to talk yet another computer into
>No program is bug-free
>This is a program
>----------------------
>It is bug-free
exploding is fraught with hazard. Beware!
- Brian
Alan J Rosenthal
Dec 12, 2011, 5:58:20 PM12/12/11
to
I'm sorry, the above words are equivalent to whitespace in terms of rational
thought. This renders your sentence unintelligible.
thought. This renders your sentence unintelligible.
Alan J Rosenthal
Dec 12, 2011, 6:06:51 PM12/12/11
to
Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> writes:
>In other words: when did you stop fucking your lusers?
Lusers can go fuck themselves.
>In other words: when did you stop fucking your lusers?
-- aj "aiming for ambiguity" r
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Shmuel Metz
Dec 11, 2011, 5:23:38 PM12/11/11
to
In <2011Dec11.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>, on 12/11/2011
one night stands.
Ab, abg sheavgher.
at 03:35 PM, fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) said:
>"The four Fs: fucking, fucking, fucking, and fucking."
>??
No, that F word only occurs in the 3rd position. The others relate to
>"The four Fs: fucking, fucking, fucking, and fucking."
>??
one night stands.
Ab, abg sheavgher.
Lionel
Dec 12, 2011, 9:03:31 PM12/12/11
to
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 13, 2011, 1:18:02 AM12/13/11
to
On 2011-12-12, Brian Kantor <br...@karoshi.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Invoking the Shatner daemon to talk yet another computer into
> exploding is fraught with hazard. Beware!
Damn. It should have been "spot a bug" competition.
> Invoking the Shatner daemon to talk yet another computer into
> exploding is fraught with hazard. Beware!
Every program has a bug
This is a program
-----------------------
Therefore it has a bug
William Shatner singing "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"
blows my mind too.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 13, 2011, 5:34:19 AM12/13/11
to
On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>
>> Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> writes:
>>>the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>>
>> I'm sorry, the above words are equivalent to whitespace in terms of
>> rational thought. This renders your sentence unintelligible.
>
> We have a Creationist in the Monastery?
Meaning who? Alan or Joe?
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>
>> Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> writes:
>>>the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>>
>> I'm sorry, the above words are equivalent to whitespace in terms of
>> rational thought. This renders your sentence unintelligible.
>
> We have a Creationist in the Monastery?
SteveD
Dec 13, 2011, 6:00:54 AM12/13/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:14:15 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski
<wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger
>of mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from BOFH and
>LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers and *against*
>the sysadmins at the same time.
I would have thought sysadmins and programmers would be the first to
<wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>Do you realize what that means in the not too distant future? Danger
>of mass extinction for sysadmins due to overwhelming pressure from BOFH and
>LUSER simulators since such pressure works *for* the lusers and *against*
>the sysadmins at the same time.
convince such new systems to substitute for 90% of the lusers.
"Go away or I shall replace you with a very small A.I. pattern."
-SteveD
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 13, 2011, 6:26:39 AM12/13/11
to
On 2011-12-13, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
> I would have thought sysadmins and programmers would be the first to
> convince such new systems to substitute for 90% of the lusers.
>
> "Go away or I shall replace you with a very small A.I. pattern."
Exactly. But imagine the world where you will have to take into account
> I would have thought sysadmins and programmers would be the first to
> convince such new systems to substitute for 90% of the lusers.
>
> "Go away or I shall replace you with a very small A.I. pattern."
that behavior of a system somehow emerges from huge body of simple but
self-organized operations, because of which you are compelled to genuine
discussions with the machines in order to debug some high level functions.
So instead of developing a decent NLP system, or is it NLU, somebody decides
that it would be far cheaper to build another simulator to talk to those
"small A.I. patterns."
Remember, for the most part they are not programmed in any traditional
way. They are learning.
Lionel
Dec 13, 2011, 6:30:10 AM12/13/11
to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:34:19 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> writes:
>>>>the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, the above words are equivalent to whitespace in terms of
>>> rational thought. This renders your sentence unintelligible.
>>
>> We have a Creationist in the Monastery?
>
> Meaning who? Alan or Joe?
Alan, presumably, or at least that is the obvious explanation. That said,
> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> writes:
>>>>the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, the above words are equivalent to whitespace in terms of
>>> rational thought. This renders your sentence unintelligible.
>>
>> We have a Creationist in the Monastery?
>
> Meaning who? Alan or Joe?
it seems unlikely, so perhaps I've misinterpreted him.
Lionel
Dec 13, 2011, 6:32:31 AM12/13/11
to
marketing department with a couple of medium-sized shell scripts. They
were not happy about having to work for a living.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 13, 2011, 7:28:13 AM12/13/11
to
On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:34:19 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
> Alan, presumably, or at least that is the obvious explanation. That said,
> it seems unlikely, so perhaps I've misinterpreted him.
Right. Instead of Creationists let's talk about Global-Warmists. Yeah, let's
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:34:19 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
> Alan, presumably, or at least that is the obvious explanation. That said,
> it seems unlikely, so perhaps I've misinterpreted him.
talk about them. Are there any Global Warmists in the Monastery? I mean, you
can get as much religious as you like so far as global warming is concerned.
Or downright practical for that matter, given huge sums of money involved.
So global warming anyone?
c...@nospam.netunix.com
Dec 13, 2011, 8:23:57 AM12/13/11
to
Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
> Right. Instead of Creationists let's talk about Global-Warmists. Yeah, let's
> talk about them. Are there any Global Warmists in the Monastery? I mean, you
> can get as much religious as you like so far as global warming is concerned.
> Or downright practical for that matter, given huge sums of money involved.
> So global warming anyone?
There is no credible doubt, the planet is warming.
> Right. Instead of Creationists let's talk about Global-Warmists. Yeah, let's
> talk about them. Are there any Global Warmists in the Monastery? I mean, you
> can get as much religious as you like so far as global warming is concerned.
> Or downright practical for that matter, given huge sums of money involved.
> So global warming anyone?
The problem is that nobody wants to pay or be inconvenienced by doing
anything about it.
Politics 101 - Sod the world, I'm alright.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 13, 2011, 9:06:03 AM12/13/11
to
On 2011-12-13, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
> There is no credible doubt, the planet is warming.
Yes. Will it continue for the next 100 years, and if so, then how do we
> There is no credible doubt, the planet is warming.
know it?
> The problem is that nobody wants to pay or be inconvenienced by doing
> anything about it.
> Politics 101 - Sod the world, I'm alright.
or carbon credit trader
Lionel
Dec 13, 2011, 10:40:50 AM12/13/11
to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:28:13 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:34:19 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>> Alan, presumably, or at least that is the obvious explanation. That
>> said, it seems unlikely, so perhaps I've misinterpreted him.
> Right. Instead of Creationists let's talk about Global-Warmists. Yeah,
> let's talk about them. Are there any Global Warmists in the Monastery? I
> mean, you can get as much religious as you like so far as global warming
> is concerned. Or downright practical for that matter, given huge sums of
> money involved. So global warming anyone?
Um what?
> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:34:19 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>> Alan, presumably, or at least that is the obvious explanation. That
>> said, it seems unlikely, so perhaps I've misinterpreted him.
> Right. Instead of Creationists let's talk about Global-Warmists. Yeah,
> let's talk about them. Are there any Global Warmists in the Monastery? I
> mean, you can get as much religious as you like so far as global warming
> is concerned. Or downright practical for that matter, given huge sums of
> money involved. So global warming anyone?
Lionel
Dec 13, 2011, 10:41:28 AM12/13/11
to
Message has been deleted
mlooney
Dec 13, 2011, 11:12:03 AM12/13/11
to
ab...@127.0.0.1 wrote:
> Ah, yes, those. Where thanks to Fha the current idiom for checking
> if foo is number is
> try : float( foo )
> except : print 'not a number:', foo
> In a language that does not have types.
> Hostile takeover by Orrible is too good for those wankers.
Ah, what? Even PHP [0], strange beast that it is has a is_numeric()
and one of PHP's (many) faults is it has no types.
[0] Shut up. It pays the bills.
--
I take one drug to protect myself from myself
The other 3 drugs are to protect you from me.
Please keep this in mind if and when I say I'm off my meds.
> Ah, yes, those. Where thanks to Fha the current idiom for checking
> if foo is number is
> try : float( foo )
> except : print 'not a number:', foo
> In a language that does not have types.
> Hostile takeover by Orrible is too good for those wankers.
Ah, what? Even PHP [0], strange beast that it is has a is_numeric()
and one of PHP's (many) faults is it has no types.
[0] Shut up. It pays the bills.
--
I take one drug to protect myself from myself
The other 3 drugs are to protect you from me.
Please keep this in mind if and when I say I'm off my meds.
LP
Dec 13, 2011, 11:14:24 AM12/13/11
to
> AKA: Screw my kids, I'm fine.
Most places will lock you up for that sort of behaviour.
-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com
Message has been deleted
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 13, 2011, 1:32:55 PM12/13/11
to
On 2011-12-13, Satya <sat...@satyaonline.cjb.net> wrote:
Oh yes, Mrs. Jones. I talk to her all the time. She is a SPARCstation.
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:26:39 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>> Exactly. But imagine the world where you will have to take into account
>> that behavior of a system somehow emerges from huge body of simple but
>> self-organized operations, because of which you are compelled to genuine
>> discussions with the machines in order to debug some high level functions.
>
> ... wait a sec, don't we already do this?
>> Exactly. But imagine the world where you will have to take into account
>> that behavior of a system somehow emerges from huge body of simple but
>> self-organized operations, because of which you are compelled to genuine
>> discussions with the machines in order to debug some high level functions.
>
Oh yes, Mrs. Jones. I talk to her all the time. She is a SPARCstation.
Alexander Schreiber
Dec 13, 2011, 5:15:01 PM12/13/11
to
Graham Reed <gr...@pobox.com> wrote:
> ab...@127.0.0.1 writes:
>> It does look, however, that snakes'n'trains might achieve what visual
>> basic failed to and put all software injuners out of work. I'm certain
>> that must have a downside somewhere.
>
> Based on what I've seen of snakes code, the typical snake-wrangler has
> not heard of the phrase, "failure mode".
My pet peeve with @PROJECTS: "Error handling? We need no stinking error
> ab...@127.0.0.1 writes:
>> It does look, however, that snakes'n'trains might achieve what visual
>> basic failed to and put all software injuners out of work. I'm certain
>> that must have a downside somewhere.
>
> Based on what I've seen of snakes code, the typical snake-wrangler has
> not heard of the phrase, "failure mode".
handling, just vomit a stack dump in the general direction of whoever
is foolish enough to run this stuff and call it a day."
Some of the people involved even act annoyed when you state that no,
stack puke is _not_ acceptable. Especially for stuff that is pretty
easy to deal with sanely.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Graham Reed
Dec 13, 2011, 5:05:20 PM12/13/11
to
ab...@leftmind.net (AdB) writes:
> I've so far delivered a grand total of one (1) piece'o'code in that
> newfangled tongue, and it had exception traps around the bits that
> could G0 W0rng.
I've occasionally seen code like that. More often, stuff fails, other
stuff fails, and when the exception is finally caught, it's so far from
the cause that you have no idea what's actually wrong.
There is no such thing as a language which makes impossible to write bad
code.
--
But it is for a good reason. Not dying on the job is cool.
-- Randy the Random in the Monastery
> I've so far delivered a grand total of one (1) piece'o'code in that
> newfangled tongue, and it had exception traps around the bits that
> could G0 W0rng.
I've occasionally seen code like that. More often, stuff fails, other
stuff fails, and when the exception is finally caught, it's so far from
the cause that you have no idea what's actually wrong.
There is no such thing as a language which makes impossible to write bad
code.
--
But it is for a good reason. Not dying on the job is cool.
-- Randy the Random in the Monastery
Graham Reed
Dec 13, 2011, 5:07:56 PM12/13/11
to
ab...@leftmind.net (AdB) writes:
> V nz yrsg gb vzntvar gung gur glcvpny yhfre zhfg unir na rvtugrra-vapu
> fpuybat jvgu ng yrnfg guerr ryobjf va vg, naq nz engure tynq gb unir
> arire rkcrevraprq fhpu n guvat qverpgyl.
Vg qbrfa'g arrq gb or gung ybat; V'ir frra vg qbar jvgu n zrnfyl 8
vapure.... Vg qvq gnxr n pbzovangvba bs... hz... erprcgvir bevsvpr,
fpuybat va gur abg-ragveryl-evtvq-ohg-arneyl-gurer fgngr, naq zber
tlzanfgvp novyvgl gung V'ir rire unq.
Jbj, .fvtzbafgre vf ba fbzrguvat....
--
"...and 8 inches is really not that impressive."
-- Kari Byron, Mythbuster
> V nz yrsg gb vzntvar gung gur glcvpny yhfre zhfg unir na rvtugrra-vapu
> fpuybat jvgu ng yrnfg guerr ryobjf va vg, naq nz engure tynq gb unir
> arire rkcrevraprq fhpu n guvat qverpgyl.
Vg qbrfa'g arrq gb or gung ybat; V'ir frra vg qbar jvgu n zrnfyl 8
vapure.... Vg qvq gnxr n pbzovangvba bs... hz... erprcgvir bevsvpr,
fpuybat va gur abg-ragveryl-evtvq-ohg-arneyl-gurer fgngr, naq zber
tlzanfgvp novyvgl gung V'ir rire unq.
Jbj, .fvtzbafgre vf ba fbzrguvat....
--
"...and 8 inches is really not that impressive."
-- Kari Byron, Mythbuster
Lionel
Dec 13, 2011, 8:48:01 PM12/13/11
to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:05:20 -0500, Graham Reed wrote:
> ab...@leftmind.net (AdB) writes:
>> I've so far delivered a grand total of one (1) piece'o'code in that
>> newfangled tongue, and it had exception traps around the bits that
>> could G0 W0rng.
>
> I've occasionally seen code like that. More often, stuff fails, other
> stuff fails, and when the exception is finally caught, it's so far from
> the cause that you have no idea what's actually wrong.
>
> There is no such thing as a language which makes impossible to write bad
> code.
That's why it's an art, not a science.
> ab...@leftmind.net (AdB) writes:
>> I've so far delivered a grand total of one (1) piece'o'code in that
>> newfangled tongue, and it had exception traps around the bits that
>> could G0 W0rng.
>
> I've occasionally seen code like that. More often, stuff fails, other
> stuff fails, and when the exception is finally caught, it's so far from
> the cause that you have no idea what's actually wrong.
>
> There is no such thing as a language which makes impossible to write bad
> code.
Lionel
Dec 13, 2011, 8:49:33 PM12/13/11
to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:14:24 +0000, LP wrote:
> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> AKA: Screw my kids, I'm fine.
>
> Most places will lock you up for that sort of behaviour.
Well, what can I say?
> On 2011-12-13, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> AKA: Screw my kids, I'm fine.
>
> Most places will lock you up for that sort of behaviour.
Alan J Rosenthal
Dec 13, 2011, 10:57:37 PM12/13/11
to
Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>> Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> writes:
>>>the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>>
>> I'm sorry, the above words are equivalent to whitespace in terms of
>> rational thought. This renders your sentence unintelligible.
>
>We have a Creationist in the Monastery?
Certainly not I.
>On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:20 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>> Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> writes:
>>>the selfish-gene perspective on evolution
>>
>> I'm sorry, the above words are equivalent to whitespace in terms of
>> rational thought. This renders your sentence unintelligible.
>
>We have a Creationist in the Monastery?
The sociobiologists didn't invent atheism, and they're not good
representatives of it.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 14, 2011, 1:57:22 AM12/14/11
to
On 2011-12-14, Alan J Rosenthal <fl...@dgp.toronto.edu> wrote:
> The sociobiologists didn't invent atheism, and they're not good
> representatives of it.
Um, sociobiology? Isn't that something about... chickens? First time
> The sociobiologists didn't invent atheism, and they're not good
> representatives of it.
I heard about sociobiology was somebody's description of the pecking
order, which has other nice names: Hackordnung or Hackliste.
Message has been deleted
Joe Zeff
Dec 14, 2011, 2:34:11 AM12/14/11
to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:23:57 +0000, crn wrote:
> There is no credible doubt, the planet is warming.
> The problem is that nobody wants to pay or be inconvenienced by doing
> anything about it.
Another problem is the fact that large numbers of people aren't convinced
> The problem is that nobody wants to pay or be inconvenienced by doing
> anything about it.
that humanity is the cause. Another problem is that even if everybody
were convinced that humanity's the cause, that wouldn't make it true if,
in fact, it weren't.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
If you haven't got time to RTFM, you
haven't got time to whine on Usenet about it.
Message has been deleted
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 14, 2011, 5:01:05 AM12/14/11
to
On 2011-12-14, Michel <ab...@rubberchicken.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:26:39 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:26:39 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>> Exactly. But imagine the world where you will have to take into account
>> that behavior of a system somehow emerges from huge body of simple but
>> self-organized operations, because of which you are compelled to genuine
>> discussions with the machines in order to debug some high level functions.
>
> "Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?"
>> that behavior of a system somehow emerges from huge body of simple but
>> self-organized operations, because of which you are compelled to genuine
>> discussions with the machines in order to debug some high level functions.
>
Like solipsism?
David Cameron Staples
Dec 14, 2011, 5:02:20 AM12/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:01:05 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> On 2011-12-14, Michel <ab...@rubberchicken.nl> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:26:39 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>> Exactly. But imagine the world where you will have to take into
>>> account that behavior of a system somehow emerges from huge body of
>>> simple but self-organized operations, because of which you are
>>> compelled to genuine discussions with the machines in order to debug
>>> some high level functions.
>>
>> "Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?"
>
> Like solipsism?
"Let there be light."
> On 2011-12-14, Michel <ab...@rubberchicken.nl> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:26:39 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>> Exactly. But imagine the world where you will have to take into
>>> account that behavior of a system somehow emerges from huge body of
>>> simple but self-organized operations, because of which you are
>>> compelled to genuine discussions with the machines in order to debug
>>> some high level functions.
>>
>> "Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?"
>
> Like solipsism?
SteveD
Dec 14, 2011, 5:47:10 AM12/14/11
to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:26:39 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski
<wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>So instead of developing a decent NLP system, or is it NLU, somebody decides
>that it would be far cheaper to build another simulator to talk to those
>"small A.I. patterns."
Ah, but that simulator would be a very _expensive_ A.I. pattern.
>So instead of developing a decent NLP system, or is it NLU, somebody decides
>that it would be far cheaper to build another simulator to talk to those
>"small A.I. patterns."
Although I can see a sysadmin having in their arsenal a bunch of small
patterns to take care of the bottom 90% of troubleshooting and data
collection.
-SteveD
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 14, 2011, 6:11:23 AM12/14/11
to
On 2011-12-14, David Cameron Staples <sta...@unimelb.edu.au.NOSPAM> wrote:
> "Let there be light."
>
That is why you need to incorporate external world into the subject of enquiry
which is incapable of proving that the world exists. But, if the world is part
of the subject, the proof follows trivially from Cartesian cogito. Somewhere
around 1714 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz considers monads, a beautiful hack IMHO.
> "Let there be light."
>
That is why you need to incorporate external world into the subject of enquiry
which is incapable of proving that the world exists. But, if the world is part
of the subject, the proof follows trivially from Cartesian cogito. Somewhere
around 1714 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz considers monads, a beautiful hack IMHO.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 14, 2011, 6:31:16 AM12/14/11
to
On 2011-12-14, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>that it would be far cheaper to build another simulator to talk to those
>>"small A.I. patterns."
>
> Ah, but that simulator would be a very _expensive_ A.I. pattern.
Could be, could be, but my guess is the Manglement will go for it.
>>that it would be far cheaper to build another simulator to talk to those
>>"small A.I. patterns."
>
> Ah, but that simulator would be a very _expensive_ A.I. pattern.
We are nothing but cost centers to them.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Peter Corlett
Dec 14, 2011, 1:42:28 PM12/14/11
to
Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
[...]
it made a profit, somebody would have to pay tax on it. The problem starts
when management thinks that the company's accounts bear anything more than a
passing resemblance to reality.
[...]
> Could be, could be, but my guess is the Manglement will go for it.
> We are nothing but cost centers to them.
Only because it is a convenient accounting fiction to itemise it as such. If
> We are nothing but cost centers to them.
it made a profit, somebody would have to pay tax on it. The problem starts
when management thinks that the company's accounts bear anything more than a
passing resemblance to reality.
Garrett Wollman
Dec 14, 2011, 1:47:46 PM12/14/11
to
In article <4ee85173$0$29349$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>,
Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
>Another problem is the fact that large numbers of morons aren't convinced
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
>Another problem is the fact that large numbers of morons aren't convinced
>that humanity is the cause.
Fixed it for you. HTH, HAND.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Joe Zeff
Dec 14, 2011, 5:22:03 PM12/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:47:46 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <4ee85173$0$29349$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>,
> Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
>
>>Another problem is the fact that large numbers of morons aren't
>>convinced that humanity is the cause.
>
> Fixed it for you. HTH, HAND.
>
If I'd wanted to write it that way, I would have, especially as I
> In article <4ee85173$0$29349$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>,
> Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
>
>>Another problem is the fact that large numbers of morons aren't
>>convinced that humanity is the cause.
>
> Fixed it for you. HTH, HAND.
>
personally think that the AGW claims are vastly exaggerated. In the
future, please keep that moronic comment to Slashdot, where it belongs.
Moron.
LART them all and let sysadmin sort it out!
Graham Reed
Dec 14, 2011, 4:02:53 PM12/14/11
to
Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> writes:
> Some of the people involved even act annoyed when you state that no,
> stack puke is _not_ acceptable. Especially for stuff that is pretty
> easy to deal with sanely.
Heck, we charge half a million for software written that badly.
> Some of the people involved even act annoyed when you state that no,
> stack puke is _not_ acceptable. Especially for stuff that is pretty
> easy to deal with sanely.
It's led me to believe error handling is only possible in free
software. It's not guaranteed, but paying for the stuff sure seems to
make sure it _won't_ be there.
Compare with flash update utilities that don't verify compatibility
before burning an image.
--
"I'm not crazy! My mother had me tested!"
-- Sheldon Cooper
Garrett Wollman
Dec 14, 2011, 6:35:39 PM12/14/11
to
In article <4ee9218b$0$29439$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>,
much as mine. I see. Perhaps we should consult some people who
actually do know something about geophysics, shall we?
Less flippantly: it's not the rational people who are the problem,
it's the stupid ones. Reasonable people will eventually arrive at the
correct conclusion, if believable evidence is presented (assuming
there actually is a unique correct answer). The uneducated and the
uneducable are much less predictable.
Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
>If I'd wanted to write it that way, I would have, especially as I
>personally think that the AGW claims are vastly exaggerated.
And your expertise in that field is what, precisely? Ah, about as
>If I'd wanted to write it that way, I would have, especially as I
>personally think that the AGW claims are vastly exaggerated.
much as mine. I see. Perhaps we should consult some people who
actually do know something about geophysics, shall we?
Less flippantly: it's not the rational people who are the problem,
it's the stupid ones. Reasonable people will eventually arrive at the
correct conclusion, if believable evidence is presented (assuming
there actually is a unique correct answer). The uneducated and the
uneducable are much less predictable.
Cipher
Dec 14, 2011, 8:42:48 PM12/14/11
to
On 12/11/2011 11:16 AM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>
> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
Lusers, LARTs, liquor, and LARTS.
--
The word "urgent" is the moral of the story "The boy who cried wolf". As
a general rule I don't believe it until a manager comes to me almost in
tears. I like to catch them in a cup and drink them later.
-- Matt Holiab, in the Monastery
> On 11 Dec 2011 15:35:34 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
>> -- aj "dealing with the four Ls of sysadmin life" r
>
> Lusers, liars, 'lectrickery, and liquor?
Lusers, LARTs, liquor, and LARTS.
--
The word "urgent" is the moral of the story "The boy who cried wolf". As
a general rule I don't believe it until a manager comes to me almost in
tears. I like to catch them in a cup and drink them later.
-- Matt Holiab, in the Monastery
Joe Zeff
Dec 14, 2011, 10:41:31 PM12/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:35:39 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <4ee9218b$0$29439$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>, Joe Zeff
> <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
>
>>If I'd wanted to write it that way, I would have, especially as I
>>personally think that the AGW claims are vastly exaggerated.
>
> And your expertise in that field is what, precisely? Ah, about as much
> as mine. I see. Perhaps we should consult some people who actually do
> know something about geophysics, shall we?
Which is why I made the statement in the form of an opinion. Unlike all
> In article <4ee9218b$0$29439$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>, Joe Zeff
> <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
>
>>If I'd wanted to write it that way, I would have, especially as I
>>personally think that the AGW claims are vastly exaggerated.
>
> And your expertise in that field is what, precisely? Ah, about as much
> as mine. I see. Perhaps we should consult some people who actually do
> know something about geophysics, shall we?
too many people, I understand the difference between the an opinion and a
fact, and am careful to make the distinction clear.
OMG! PONIES!!!
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 14, 2011, 11:39:30 PM12/14/11
to
On 2011-12-14, Peter Corlett <ab...@mooli.org.uk> wrote:
> Only because it is a convenient accounting fiction to itemise it as such. If
> it made a profit, somebody would have to pay tax on it. The problem starts
> when management thinks that the company's accounts bear anything more than a
> passing resemblance to reality.
They tend to think that IMO. In banking they even employ Keynesian economists.
> Only because it is a convenient accounting fiction to itemise it as such. If
> it made a profit, somebody would have to pay tax on it. The problem starts
> when management thinks that the company's accounts bear anything more than a
> passing resemblance to reality.
Soon there will be lots of similar posts for climate scientists in government
& industry.
Message has been deleted
David Scheidt
Dec 15, 2011, 2:05:37 AM12/15/11
to
Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
you have your own facts. You might be entitled to your opinion, but
you sure aren't entitled to your own facts. And pretending that you
are so entitled is luserish; pretending that they aren't your facts is
moronic. Care to pick?
--
sig 109
:On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:35:39 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
:> In article <4ee9218b$0$29439$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>, Joe Zeff
:> <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
:>
:>>If I'd wanted to write it that way, I would have, especially as I
:>>personally think that the AGW claims are vastly exaggerated.
:>
:> And your expertise in that field is what, precisely? Ah, about as much
:> as mine. I see. Perhaps we should consult some people who actually do
:> know something about geophysics, shall we?
:Which is why I made the statement in the form of an opinion. Unlike all
:too many people, I understand the difference between the an opinion and a
:fact, and am careful to make the distinction clear.
Except you're expressing your opinion in a manner that requires that
:> In article <4ee9218b$0$29439$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>, Joe Zeff
:> <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
:>
:>>If I'd wanted to write it that way, I would have, especially as I
:>>personally think that the AGW claims are vastly exaggerated.
:>
:> And your expertise in that field is what, precisely? Ah, about as much
:> as mine. I see. Perhaps we should consult some people who actually do
:> know something about geophysics, shall we?
:Which is why I made the statement in the form of an opinion. Unlike all
:too many people, I understand the difference between the an opinion and a
:fact, and am careful to make the distinction clear.
you have your own facts. You might be entitled to your opinion, but
you sure aren't entitled to your own facts. And pretending that you
are so entitled is luserish; pretending that they aren't your facts is
moronic. Care to pick?
--
sig 109
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 2:11:04 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
> Which is why I made the statement in the form of an opinion. Unlike all
> too many people, I understand the difference between the an opinion and a
> fact, and am careful to make the distinction clear.
Paradoxically, that venerable distinction *in my opinion* is more clear
> Which is why I made the statement in the form of an opinion. Unlike all
> too many people, I understand the difference between the an opinion and a
> fact, and am careful to make the distinction clear.
in journalism than in science where hard facts are much more difficult to
discover. And if they are discovered, they involve some element of the
theory, the most neutral example of which is mathematical statistics.
The AGW controversy is so intense because it is concerned with environment
which we all have to share. However, it is the fact that good, reliable
information about GW is difficult to obtain that makes the controversy
so intense IMO. After what, more than 10 years of the controversy the first
study that takes all available data into account, wich is prerequisite for
doing science BTW, shows that there indeed is GW.
But the study, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study,
apparently has nothing to say about whether the GW is anthropogenic.
Maybe their application of statistics is too careful. But probably
more data, such as oceanic data, needs to be collected and analysed.
And all that even before the modelling starts. Yes I know the models
are run all the time. But that is only the temperature and pressure
field mometum that can be extrapolated on what, 10 days? Apparently
after more than 10 days the simulation becomes too complex and it is
anybody's guess if it will rain on a hot summer day. The models seem
rather imperfect in predicting the future.
In the meantime the government of Nepal is in session on the slopes
of Chomolungma and the government of Maldives dives under water to
demand action.
So if it is impossible to control the climate, why not try to manage it?
Why not try to make some clouds? My guess is that only 3% more clouds today
will bring down the temperatures to the level observed before industrial
revolution. And if it doesn't, let's try someting else. But never pretend
we understand the climate and can predict what it will do in respose to
our actions. It's a complex system.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 2:29:49 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, Gallian <gal...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> I come here to get *away* from the crap and the lusers that can only
> parrot talking points.
My apologies. I didn't realize it was a talking point.
> I come here to get *away* from the crap and the lusers that can only
> parrot talking points.
My apologies. I didn't realize it was a talking point.
David Scheidt
Dec 15, 2011, 2:35:45 AM12/15/11
to
Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
clue.
--
sig 16
:On 2011-12-15, Gallian <gal...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
:> I come here to get *away* from the crap and the lusers that can only
:> parrot talking points.
:My apologies. I didn't realize it was a talking point.
You admit you're parroting, then? That really should have been a
:> I come here to get *away* from the crap and the lusers that can only
:> parrot talking points.
:My apologies. I didn't realize it was a talking point.
clue.
--
sig 16
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 2:42:55 AM12/15/11
to
me a luser, does it?
WS
Lawns 'R' Us
Dec 15, 2011, 2:56:49 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
> And all that even before the modelling starts. Yes I know the models
> are run all the time. But that is only the temperature and pressure
> field mometum that can be extrapolated on what, 10 days? Apparently
> after more than 10 days the simulation becomes too complex and it is
> anybody's guess if it will rain on a hot summer day. The models seem
> rather imperfect in predicting the future.
All that I will say on this particular topic is this: the word
> And all that even before the modelling starts. Yes I know the models
> are run all the time. But that is only the temperature and pressure
> field mometum that can be extrapolated on what, 10 days? Apparently
> after more than 10 days the simulation becomes too complex and it is
> anybody's guess if it will rain on a hot summer day. The models seem
> rather imperfect in predicting the future.
"climate" does not mean "weather". The two are very distinct: the
latter refers to the state of affairs vis-a-vis precipitation,
humidity, wind, temperature, and similar. The former refers to the
general region within which the weather can be expected to fall - eg,
hot and humid; dry and cool; lots of rain; strong winds; that sort of
thing.
Making predictions about the weather a few days from now is *not* the
same science as making predictions about the climate a few decades
from now. For example (to draw a very loose analogy, and I would
welcome any suggestions for a better), if I have a weighted die, I
might say that I expect it to fall on three more often than not. The
fact that I happened to throw a one, a five, and a four does not
necessarily invalidate the expectation. Conflating the two terms is a
hallmark of muddy thinking, and that's a significant portion of the
problem surrounding news reporting (especially that which Fox calls
news) of the science.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 4:27:56 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, Lawns 'R' Us <nob...@nowhere.example.com> wrote:
> Making predictions about the weather a few days from now is *not* the
> same science as making predictions about the climate a few decades
> from now. For example (to draw a very loose analogy, and I would
> welcome any suggestions for a better), if I have a weighted die, I
> might say that I expect it to fall on three more often than not. The
> fact that I happened to throw a one, a five, and a four does not
> necessarily invalidate the expectation.
True, but this makes me to ask about the methods. Is there anything better
> Making predictions about the weather a few days from now is *not* the
> same science as making predictions about the climate a few decades
> from now. For example (to draw a very loose analogy, and I would
> welcome any suggestions for a better), if I have a weighted die, I
> might say that I expect it to fall on three more often than not. The
> fact that I happened to throw a one, a five, and a four does not
> necessarily invalidate the expectation.
then building models? Guessing? Or is it that the climate models are not
only different from, but more reliable than those used for short term
predictios?
> Conflating the two terms is a hallmark of muddy thinking, and that's a
> significant portion of the problem surrounding news reporting
> (especially that which Fox calls news) of the science.
of impression.
SteveD
Dec 15, 2011, 5:29:37 AM12/15/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:31:16 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski
<wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>On 2011-12-14, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>>that it would be far cheaper to build another simulator to talk to those
>>>"small A.I. patterns."
>>
>> Ah, but that simulator would be a very _expensive_ A.I. pattern.
>Could be, could be, but my guess is the Manglement will go for it.
>We are nothing but cost centers to them.
Ah, but who will be needed to write and coddle the expensive patterns?
<wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>On 2011-12-14, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>>that it would be far cheaper to build another simulator to talk to those
>>>"small A.I. patterns."
>>
>> Ah, but that simulator would be a very _expensive_ A.I. pattern.
>Could be, could be, but my guess is the Manglement will go for it.
>We are nothing but cost centers to them.
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 6:05:47 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
> On 2011-12-15, David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>>:On 2011-12-15, Gallian <gal...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>:> I come here to get *away* from the crap and the lusers that can only
>>:> parrot talking points.
>>
> On 2011-12-15, David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>>:On 2011-12-15, Gallian <gal...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>:> I come here to get *away* from the crap and the lusers that can only
>>:> parrot talking points.
>>
> Parroting? How should I? I am just trying to be polite and that doen't make
> me a luser, does it?
Oh, and if it does make me one in the eyes of you two, then here we go:
> me a luser, does it?
it's not about politics, you twits. Fuck politics. It's about making
a living.
WD
Message has been deleted
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 6:36:42 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
> Ah, but who will be needed to write and coddle the expensive patterns?
I don't know. The types employed at Almaden now?
> Ah, but who will be needed to write and coddle the expensive patterns?
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 6:46:12 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, Gallian <gal...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> And if you're being asked, in public, to stop offensive behaviour, the
> correct answer is to apologise and stop, not to start whining.
I already did, and to you which you must have seen unless there are some
propagation problems. Now piss off.
TimC
Dec 15, 2011, 7:14:54 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, Wojciech Derechowski (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
non linear chaotic system. The improved forecasts over time have been
due to increased grid and time resolution so atmospheric features can
be better tracked and extrapolated.
Climate is a simple energy balance heat transfer equation with
positive and negative feedbacks. The positive feedbacks make things
really bad, and the negative feedbacks at best can mitigate only some
of the warming (or cooling, if the heat transfer equations went that
way, which they don't -- the Sun is on the outside of the Earth's
atmosphere). Relatively easy to forecast decades into the future,
with outcomes only really dependant upon the unknown scale of the
positive and negative feedbacks, but bad outcomes whichever way you
look at it.
Make no mistake - the climate will affect the weather. More energy in
the atmosphere == more interesting.cn weather.
> So if it is impossible to control the climate, why not try to manage it?
> Why not try to make some clouds? My guess is that only 3% more clouds today
> will bring down the temperatures to the level observed before industrial
> revolution. And if it doesn't, let's try someting else. But never pretend
> we understand the climate and can predict what it will do in respose to
> our actions. It's a complex system.
I've worked on control systems before. Simple 500 tonne objects
working in 2 dimensions. It takes a long time to tune a control
system so it doesn't oscillate wildly about. And most control systems
we have experience with have very reasonable response times, so it is
easy to learn how the system responds, and easy to hit the emergency
stop when it starts to go wrong. And they don't have any chaotic
components. And they're also of human scale. It will take us years
to realise that we've just pushed a component of the atmosphere or the
oceans in the wrong direction or at the wrong speed. By which time we
have some other climate crisis on our hands that will take decades to
resolve with the next push of the climate in another direction. I
wonder what is happening down-weather of China who are currently cloud
seeing to the tune of something like 30 gigalitres per year?
You *really* don't want to go down the planetary engineering route.
That way lie dragons.
--
TimC
"The application failed to fail"
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> And all that even before the modelling starts. Yes I know the models
> are run all the time. But that is only the temperature and pressure
> field mometum that can be extrapolated on what, 10 days? Apparently
> after more than 10 days the simulation becomes too complex and it is
> anybody's guess if it will rain on a hot summer day. The models seem
> rather imperfect in predicting the future.
As Stuart said, weather != climate. Weather is a horribly complicated
> are run all the time. But that is only the temperature and pressure
> field mometum that can be extrapolated on what, 10 days? Apparently
> after more than 10 days the simulation becomes too complex and it is
> anybody's guess if it will rain on a hot summer day. The models seem
> rather imperfect in predicting the future.
non linear chaotic system. The improved forecasts over time have been
due to increased grid and time resolution so atmospheric features can
be better tracked and extrapolated.
Climate is a simple energy balance heat transfer equation with
positive and negative feedbacks. The positive feedbacks make things
really bad, and the negative feedbacks at best can mitigate only some
of the warming (or cooling, if the heat transfer equations went that
way, which they don't -- the Sun is on the outside of the Earth's
atmosphere). Relatively easy to forecast decades into the future,
with outcomes only really dependant upon the unknown scale of the
positive and negative feedbacks, but bad outcomes whichever way you
look at it.
Make no mistake - the climate will affect the weather. More energy in
the atmosphere == more interesting.cn weather.
> So if it is impossible to control the climate, why not try to manage it?
> Why not try to make some clouds? My guess is that only 3% more clouds today
> will bring down the temperatures to the level observed before industrial
> revolution. And if it doesn't, let's try someting else. But never pretend
> we understand the climate and can predict what it will do in respose to
> our actions. It's a complex system.
working in 2 dimensions. It takes a long time to tune a control
system so it doesn't oscillate wildly about. And most control systems
we have experience with have very reasonable response times, so it is
easy to learn how the system responds, and easy to hit the emergency
stop when it starts to go wrong. And they don't have any chaotic
components. And they're also of human scale. It will take us years
to realise that we've just pushed a component of the atmosphere or the
oceans in the wrong direction or at the wrong speed. By which time we
have some other climate crisis on our hands that will take decades to
resolve with the next push of the climate in another direction. I
wonder what is happening down-weather of China who are currently cloud
seeing to the tune of something like 30 gigalitres per year?
You *really* don't want to go down the planetary engineering route.
That way lie dragons.
--
TimC
"The application failed to fail"
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 8:43:10 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, TimC <tcon...@rather.puzzling.no-spam-accepted-here.org> wrote:
> As Stuart said, weather != climate. Weather is a horribly complicated
> non linear chaotic system. The improved forecasts over time have been
> due to increased grid and time resolution so atmospheric features can
> be better tracked and extrapolated.
I understand that, I am just not a particularly good writer.
> As Stuart said, weather != climate. Weather is a horribly complicated
> non linear chaotic system. The improved forecasts over time have been
> due to increased grid and time resolution so atmospheric features can
> be better tracked and extrapolated.
> Climate is a simple energy balance heat transfer equation with
> positive and negative feedbacks. The positive feedbacks make things
> really bad, and the negative feedbacks at best can mitigate only some
> of the warming (or cooling, if the heat transfer equations went that
> way, which they don't -- the Sun is on the outside of the Earth's
> atmosphere).
quantities of water vapour in the athmosphere, not just the levels of
carbon dioxide.
> Relatively easy to forecast decades into the future,
> with outcomes only really dependant upon the unknown scale of the
> positive and negative feedbacks, but bad outcomes whichever way you
> look at it.
always positive no matter how many times thru the loop?
> Make no mistake - the climate will affect the weather. More energy in
> the atmosphere == more interesting.cn weather.
> I've worked on control systems before. Simple 500 tonne objects
> working in 2 dimensions. It takes a long time to tune a control
> system so it doesn't oscillate wildly about. And most control systems
> we have experience with have very reasonable response times, so it is
> easy to learn how the system responds, and easy to hit the emergency
> stop when it starts to go wrong. And they don't have any chaotic
> components. And they're also of human scale.
start from very limited and cheap measures like making clouds.
> It will take us years to realise that we've just pushed a component of
> the atmosphere or the
> oceans in the wrong direction or at the wrong speed. By which time we
> have some other climate crisis on our hands that will take decades to
> resolve with the next push of the climate in another direction. I
> wonder what is happening down-weather of China who are currently cloud
> seeing to the tune of something like 30 gigalitres per year?
that is very interesting question. Let's try to find out.
> You *really* don't want to go down the planetary engineering route.
route either.
David Scheidt
Dec 15, 2011, 10:48:51 AM12/15/11
to
Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
No, parroting the talking points of the climate dis-information
industry is politics. It's luserish, too, but it's politics.
--
sig 69
industry is politics. It's luserish, too, but it's politics.
--
sig 69
Wojciech Derechowski
Dec 15, 2011, 11:19:04 AM12/15/11
to
On 2011-12-15, David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
> No, parroting the talking points of the climate dis-information
> industry is politics. It's luserish, too, but it's politics.
Please undarstand that it was pure coincidence. We don't have the climate
> No, parroting the talking points of the climate dis-information
> industry is politics. It's luserish, too, but it's politics.
dis-information industry here in .pl. At the time of posting I really didn't
know it was some sort of a talking point for the right wing media, meaning
Fox News in the US to make myself clear.
Do they really make the connection? They seem rather dumb to me. And probably
not only to me since their FTA channel was pulled out years ago from all
digital TV platforms we have here.
But I really believe what I said.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
David Gersic
Dec 15, 2011, 1:07:10 PM12/15/11
to
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:11:04 -0000, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
> The AGW controversy is so intense because it is concerned with environment
> which we all have to share.
You're half right. It's also so intense because it involves politics,
> The AGW controversy is so intense because it is concerned with environment
> which we all have to share.
and economics, and fear.
> But never pretend
> we understand the climate and can predict what it will do in respose to
> our actions. It's a complex system.
lusers of this system, and have yet to meet the BOFH that maintains it.
Joe Zeff
Dec 15, 2011, 1:34:19 PM12/15/11
to
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:11:04 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> After what, more than 10 years of the controversy the first study that
> takes all available data into account, wich is prerequisite for doing
> science BTW, shows that there indeed is GW.
Something that nobody in their right mind is disputing anyway. The
> After what, more than 10 years of the controversy the first study that
> takes all available data into account, wich is prerequisite for doing
> science BTW, shows that there indeed is GW.
climate has been getting warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age, well
before the start of the Industrial Revolution. The question is, how
much, if any of that is man-made. The AGW people (or the most strident
of them, at least) say that all of it is, the deniers say none, and we
skeptics say that there's not enough evidence to say, but that we doubt
that it's man-made.
A skeptical friend of mine asked the AGW people if he could look at the
raw data and the statistical work they'd done on it. They refused, on
the grounds that he doesn't know enough about statistics to understand
the work. Among other things, my friend has a Masters Degree in
Statistical Inference. To be fair, I doubt they knew that.
I just have a very broad definition of "normal."
Joe Zeff
Dec 15, 2011, 1:38:41 PM12/15/11
to
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:14:54 +1100, TimC wrote:
> (or cooling, if the heat transfer equations went that way, which they
> don't -- the Sun is on the outside of the Earth's atmosphere).
I don't want to be snide, but if so, how do you explain the Ice Ages?
> (or cooling, if the heat transfer equations went that way, which they
> don't -- the Sun is on the outside of the Earth's atmosphere).
Make welfare as hard to get as a building permit.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages