Slashdot Mirror

is theft from a thief still theft?

Sharp stole LCD technology from a chemistry professor at Hull University and beat them to the patent office claiming it as their own - AFTER he published papers describing the technology. http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science...

"Smart" is undergoing a semantic evolution similar to that of nice

This kind of system will allow you to stop the warning signs before the child esculates so that you can move in there with a mentoring program or a social worker, or a big brother scheme (The Other kind of big brother not the 1984 survilence system).

You made me look, so I share with you my findings. Don't take it as an attack or a troll but rather as an opportunity to grow. Esculate (error)

It's the utter, total lack of teacher training to effectively use them in the classroom that is the problem.

See Larry Cuban's book "Oversold and Underused"

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

• Shipwreck Visualization (IEEE Visualization 1998)
• Wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
  3rd Prize BP & SUT International Underwater Image Competition 2001
  [about | ext link | high-res graphic]

The University of Hull (in England) offers a Master's Program as well as an undergrad program: Computer Science with Games Development. The University of Abertay Dundee also offers a Computer Games Programming course both as a Master's and as Bachelor's

I must say I have my doubts about the "respected journal Energy & Environment". Looking through the list of abstracts they all seem to be of the greenhouse sceptic camp. I've never heard of the journal before it is published by a very little known publisher. Certainly not on a par with Nature.

The editor is interesting on her webpage she quotes "Environment becomes fashionable and I turn sceptic". Could I expect an unbiased paper in this journal. Only one editor? Most journals I know have half a dozen if not more. A lot of her own papers are published in her own journal, just a little bit odd!

The first author is not attached to an institution, the second is in an Economics department (not where I would expect to find an experienced climate modeller). No funding was recieved for the study.

The tone of the paper is strange, not what i typically expect to see. It seems intent on rubishing the data in every way possible. Most of the errors seem to be minor, a one year slip in time (as data is agrigated over a year it could be argued that this slip could just be a sampling error). Some questions about missing details of methodology used (if you've ever written papers with tight page limits you'll know that some details always get left out).

The main results fig 7 and 8 are interesting. Their results show broard agreement with the critisied paper for years 1575-1980. It is only the years pre 1575 where there is marked disagrement. Its no suprise that most errors appear in earlier years when the data is presumably less relaible. I must say I'm sceptical about their pre 1600 data that is one heck of a temprature drop, do other sources show similar results?

In particular the paper backs up the Mann's results from 1600 onwards. Especially the last 100 years where both show a rapid increase in temprature. Amounting to .3 to .5 degree change in global temprature in the past 100 years.

So is this another slashdot classic from the bottom of the barrel? Let me know when it appears in nature.

Please note that the editor of "E&E" is one of the few environmental scientists who agreed with Bjorn Lomborg "Skeptical Environmentalist", and a self-confessed environmental sceptic. As stated there, the journal itself has a "stance [that] is critical of conventional wisdom".

Now, I don't read E&E (I tend to read the mainstream geophysics journals: GAFD, JGR(Oceans) and GRL -- "E&E" is not a mainstream geophysics journal), but I am slightly concerned about work published in a journal with an agenda. One may also be concerned about the suitability of referees selected by an editor out to prove a point, rather than to publicise good science.

I tried to use my Palm PDA for note-taking but found that it took too long to enter text using Grafiti. I've found Paper and Pen much better and far more flexible.

As for doing work in the labs as opposed to back home/dorm - I totally agree. I'm in my second year studying computer science at the University of Hull, UK.

Being removed from the distractions of music, IM and TV, I can actually concentrate on what I'm supposed to be doing!