Slashdot Mirror

Open a fucking book you ignoramus. If you can't read then try a video.

For centuries North America has primarily grown six-row barley, it's the more widely available (and cheapest) barley we have here. Historically it was grown in North American for the simple reason that fewer soil amendments are required when growing it. Once we had technology for chemical fertilizers almost anything could be grown, at a price.

Two-row barley is traditionally used in English ale-style beers. Six-row barley is common in some American lager-style beers, especially when adjuncts such as corn and rice are used, whereas two-row malted summer barley is preferred for traditional German beers.

-- Wikipedia, follow the citations yourself.

Large breweries throughout the nation tend to favor six-row varieties, and craft brewers primarily use two-row varieties for their base malt.

-- Malting Barley Production in Michigan

> Launchpad came out on OSX many years ago

I was gonna say it's older than that, then realized I was thinking of Launcher.

even if tried-and-tested techniques existed. They do not.

Solved that part for ya. Here you go: tried-and-tested techniques

Why is it the pest insects are always the ones to develop resistance to pesticides? Why can't the good bugs develop pesticide resistance for once?

False,They had recounts in all those states.

By your own claim, there was no valid recount in Michigan. And Pennsylvania's wasn't completed either.

In Detroit it was found there was enough significant voter fraud that they were unable to do the recount. The fraud in Detroit appeared to favor Hillary heavily. Michigan was unable to complete a recount that was demanded and paid for by the Jill Stein and the Green party because of how poorly the heavily democratic counties handled votes and counted some ballots 8 times election night. Parts of Michigan that there wasn't obvious voter fraud went strongly to Trump.

Your entire post is an outright lie.
Story

Actually, your post is leaving out something. Who was in charge. So let's see, we have Republicans all over, allegedly, yet they couldn't ensure a fair and honest election?

Oh wait, they're the ones who gerrymandered the state.

No wonder they couldn't ensure fair and honest elections statewide. No wonder we can't trust them. Maybe they didn't count 75,000 votes.

Also remember, the only outright evidence of election rigging was by the DNC, not Trump or Russia.

Oh really, and yet you provide none of this evidence.

Already, you're suspect with your own false claims.

3. Apple pays Ireland seven billion dollars to leave the E.U.

You've been reading too many webcomics.

Or you can think of any variant you like of "what can Apple do with up to fourteen billion Euros that would cause the E.U. to back off".

Can you think of what the diplomatic language for "Get Bent" would be if Apple tried to do this? What, are you reading too many Robert Asprin books?

As the old saying goes: Billions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!

Actually, it's millions, but Eisenhower realized it, let's not enrich the military industrial complex, instead of choosing a peaceful non-confrontational path that doesn't just pour money down the coffers of fat cats getting rich out of fear.

Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite e

Eisenhower explained it to us, on his way out of office, but we didn't listen.

when he was three days from leaving office. "Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades." http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

My uncle inherited the family farm by Carrol Iowa. Pigs, corn, and soybeans. He's had to get out of the pig business as 20,000 pigs wasn't a large enough operation to compete with the big boys. He's had to buy up a lot of land as the tools have gotten bigger and the overhead is getting slimmer. There's been a lot of consolidation and there are certainly large corporate megafarms, but don't imagine every farm in the midwest is that way.

Get some perspective. Most farms are family owned. But the ones that aren't are HUUUUGE. ...it'd be interesting to see what percentage of US farmland is corporate.

Anyway, the fucking point is that small boutique farms can own their equipment, while the bulk of our food is grown by people who don't. And this issue with property ownership, right-to-repair, and license agreements is more tricky where the status quo is that most farmers lease their equipment and don't actually own it.

Regardless of what type of farm it is, how big it is, or if the vehicle isn't even associated with farming, I would say that this system of selling/renting with attached strings and license agreements is fucking bullshit. They're selling you a piece of luggage with a locked container inside that you don't have the right to open. Fuck that noise. And if the big name players get into the habit of preferring to rent and control their walled garden of equipment, then that sort of rent-seeking needs to be shot down.

Void all warranties. Open all locks. Power to the people. You have the right to recycle. If you don't actually own your property, why did you buy it?

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and he was right. The national debt is a greater threat to the country than any foreign foe.

Well, what kind of guns do you use to shoot National Debt? Is that an off shoot of National Front or something?

The US spends more on the military than the next 12 countries combined . Those who want a strong military would do better to make them more efficient in their spending, rather than increasing it. And, the US military budget could easily be cut in half without losing a bit of security against the current bogeyman.

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and he was right. The national debt is a greater threat to the country than any foreign foe.

Further proof that "science" has ceased to involve the scientific method.

Most people know Dwight D. Eisenhower for his speech on the military-industrial complex. Its a tragedy that most people just know a sound-bite or two of the speech, however. This epic speech not only warn of the dangers of a military-industrial complex, but also of a scientific technological elite.

A excerpt:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

...in an inkjet instead of a laser printer.

Presumably, as it is not stated in the paper as an issue per se, this method should get around safeguards intended to prevent using printouts - by requiring the fingerprint to be conductive to electricity.
Which would probably work with a wet printout as well.

Bwahahaha! I expect better out of you, Cold Fjord!

From Wikipedia:

In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected as the prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran, after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.

There are photographs you can find on the internet (not going to Google for you) that show how progressive Iran was before 1953. I'm talking about women wearing Western clothing and attending university, completely unaccompanied by a male relative, moving as freely about the institutions of higher learning as Hypatia at Alexander.

Let's see. If we're going to blame a president, who was COC in 1953? Wikipedia? Looking at this graph, I blame Eisenhower (R)!

On the other hand, Eisenhower gave this famous speech warning about the Military-Industrial Complex in 1961, so the rest of the story is likely quite complicated.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial [sic] complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

--D. Eisenhower. January, 1961.

A little quoted portion of his much quoted "military industrial complex" speech:

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Whenever I read about some new archeological site that is deemed to be of religious importance, I think of this wonderful piece of satire (great art too) about uncovering the remains of 1980s hotel in the year 4022:

http://www.amazon.com/Motel-My...

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Great stuff. Especially the picture of the archaeologist demonstrating how to wear the ceremonial toilet seat, I mean head dress.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...
http://people.virginia.edu/~sf...

Whenever I read about some new archeological site that is deemed to be of religious importance, I think of this wonderful piece of satire (great art too) about uncovering the remains of 1980s hotel in the year 4022:

http://www.amazon.com/Motel-My...

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Great stuff. Especially the picture of the archaeologist demonstrating how to wear the ceremonial toilet seat, I mean head dress.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...
http://people.virginia.edu/~sf...

Something like the iBot, a wheelchair that could pop up onto (and balance on) two wheels to bring you to standing eye height? Developed by the guy who would later make the Segway?

(Unfortunately, insurance companies declared it "not medically necessary" and refused to pay for it, so nobody has ever heard of it and it ended up failing.)

Corporations were not considered in the original list of entities that would need to be included in the checks-and-balances equation. Back in the Founders day, there was the East India Tea Company, but still governments were unquestioningly the shot callers. So, there was an effort to place checks and balances within government.

Today, businesses have grown large enough to co-opt government. And they definitely influence society.

Eisenhower warned of the Military-Industrial complex in his famous speech: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Today, the financial sector dwarfs defense in its lobbying efforts. Technology is also another gigantic sector with a growing influence.

So - Business must now be included in the check and balance equation of governing. Unfortunately, virtually no one willingly gives up power.

It's all BS anyways, if you search around you will find ISIS is practically a creation of the US leadership/military's stupidity, or possible even purposely allowed to form and grow.
They needed a new Al Q, so there you have it, something new in high def, chopping heads and speaking English.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

-Eisenhower.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Disagree.

The Slate article makes some good points. On the other hand, I almost stopped reading at this nonsense:

In a four-year study that started with nearly 3,000 college students, a team of Michigan State University researchers led by Neal Schmitt found that test score (SAT or ACTâ"whichever the student took) correlated strongly with cumulative GPA at the end of the fourth year. If the students were ranked on both their test scores and cumulative GPAs, those who had test scores in the top half (above the 50th percentile, or median) would have had a roughly two-thirds chance of having a cumulative GPA in the top half. By contrast, students with bottom-half SAT scores would be only one-third likely to make it to the top half in GPA.

This tells me almost nothing about a test's effectiveness, other than it can differentiate pretty well between "high-achievers" and "total morons." I could probably come up with a "test" that could satisfy this stat by talking to each student for a minute.

But hey, I gave the Slate article author the benefit of the doubt, so I tracked down the actual article he cited in this paragraph, which provides data summarized in more helpful and less dubious ways.

You can read that article, if you like, because it presents a much more nuanced picture. Long story short: correlation of SAT/ACT performance with college GPA is at a level of 0.53. That's exactly the same correlation (0.53) of high school GPA with college GPA. Meanwhile, high school GPA and SAT/ACT performance correlation with each other is 0.58.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a more thorough analysis in this article about where the mismatches occur. THAT would be really interesting. What are the characteristics of students who get high GPA in high school but low SAT scores -- how do they perform in college? And the reverse: high SAT, but low GPA? That's the only way we could actually tell how much information the SAT is actually adding... but alas, most such analyses don't look at the data that way.

Also, college GPA isn't everything. You also need to, well, FINISH college. According to that cited article, turns out high school GPA is a much better predictor in this regard than SAT scores. Having a better high school GPA gives you an odds ratio of 3.77 to actually graduate college, while having a high SAT has odds ratio of only 1.3. (This isn't mentioned in the Slate article, which only notes how high SAT correlates with graduation -- well, yes it does, but nowhere near as well as high school GPA.)

Anyhow, you can take from this what you will. I've read a number of such studies on SATs, and my conclusion is a little different from the Slate guy. Yes, SATs are correlated with college achievement. But so are some other things too (like high school grades). In borderline cases, having the SAT score may help with an admissions decision, but is the level of correlation high enough to justify letting student A in with an SAT score of X, while rejecting student B with an SAT of X-50? That's really the kind of question we need to ask if we want to justify the rampant use of SAT scores in admissions.

And I'm not sure if any research out there really can answer that question well. Certainly not most of the citations in the Slate article, which focus on broader correlations, and definitely not the Slate article itself, which cites some stats that barely qualify the SAT as useful as if they were truly revelatory.

SAT scores correlate closely with measured IQ

Here's the other problem -- the SAT was originally designed as a proxy for IQ, more or less. But over the past few decades, each

These are actually potato fruits:
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/upload...

so the confusion is understandable.

Ya...no direct evidence...except for:
-Fossils
-DNA, aka the universal genetic code
-Common traits and stages of life across species
-antibiotic/herbicide/pesticide resistance in bacteria plants
-ability to change the characteristics of living things through breeding
-long term evolutionary experiments, such as Lenski's E Coli experiment

http://www.scientificamerican....
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evi...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Al-Qaeda and ISIS are manufactured FUD, why does media like /. want to further that crap?
A Primer:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

A snippet:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

        and is gravely to be regarded.

"what I'm not finding are what to know before you start, or what it takes to make the effort worthwhile"

No one can give you the answer to this until you can communicate what you want the space to accomplish. Think ahead one year, five years. What does your space look like? Who does it serve? What key points can you identify that tell you it's successful?

Write that down. Make it realistic, and make sure it excites you AND others. Start working back with what it takes to get there. Share this. Work on it with people that would be using the space.

Starting a shop is one step, keeping it up and running is another story. Hopefully this is still relevant:
1. How will it be maintained? This is different than a personal workshop, or one shared with just a few people or a company doing production. Tools in makerspaces often get repeatedly used by people who know little about them, this is a GREAT thing, but it can be brutal on the machines.

2. Is the goal to train people to use the tools? If so, how will you accomplish this effectively?

Misc. comments:
Artisan's Asylum and Maker-Works have both offered makerspace boot camps. These are more geared towards how to keep a space running/maintaining it rather than how to start. But they're both great learning opportunities (though not cheap, and full disclosure: I work for Maker-Works)

Eastern Michigan recently opened: https://www.egr.msu.edu/ecesho...

This group is doing some research into makerspaces & education: http://catlab.gatech.edu/

Awesome, it looks like this still gets updated: https://wiki.hackerspaces.org/...

Bilal Ghalib. If you have a budget to pay someone to get you started, hire this man. http://bilalghalib.com/

Most importantly, involve the community as much as possible.

I would be happy to chat more, feel free to shoot me an email: joshdont gmail

Supreme Allied Commander

That's a very naive view of evolution, as many of the underlying concepts are testable and repeatable. In fact, Dr. Richard Lenski at Michigan State has conducted some of the first and longest running scientifically-controlled demonstrations of evolution in E. coli bacteria. Perhaps it is one of the reasons this religious group has targeted the institution.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Is it ever okay to "grease" an official's palm?
If the payment is only intended and only results in an official carrying out his or her job duties a bit faster (without breaking any other rules), then it MAY be legal. If the payment speeds up the process by ignoring the local laws or regulatory process, then the payment is still an illegal bribe. So in addition to the FCPA, you must check written laws of the host country. link

You can find many other sources, the case law around it is a bit nuanced, but basically if you're just trying to get stuff off someones desk that should be moving along under local law then you're probably ok. Congress obviously didn't mean to make it impossible for US based companies to do business around the world so the courts have to take that into account. Since most folks aren't lawyers practicing in that area of law corporate training tends to be very black and white on the issue (this also works to absolve the company if their employees tread into areas that are dark shades of grey).

Sure, Eisenhower warned of the problems but lets try something radical like reading the entire speech. Here's some context to whet your appetite...

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction....[snip]...But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions....[snip]....In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

In other words, Eisenhower saw the overwhelming power of the MIC as essential for peace and at the same time was warning the nation about the potential of a home grown Hitler.

You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars.

I don't want one with disabled main cannon. We are talking about weapons here, not fancy transportation.

You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license.

Fully armed?

SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase.

Exactly. So my right to bear arms IS being infringed upon.

You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.

Does international treaty come before constitutional amendments?

You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.

Are you saying that everybody who wants fully-functional tank is a murdered? Ha, so you are just anti (big) gun leftist in disguise!
I just want to organize a shooting competition. With 120mm tank guns it would be a lot of fun.

The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Times change - untrained militia cannot replace jet pilots, tankers, submarine crew, etc. What made sense 200 years ago is quite obsolete now.

You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars. You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license. SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase. You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.

You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.

The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

As someone from the GIS and remote sensing community either their terminology is weird, or whatever specialized focus they have is significantly different.

Remote Sensing as I know it usually revolved around satellite imagery or aerial photography. "Earth" Remote sensing? Isn't it all unless you are looking through a telescope at space :) Seriously could be something to do with seismic or magnetic sensing, but I am pretty sure there are actually terms for both of those things that are not called "Earth" Remote Sensing, but it could be they are trying to dumb it down for a public website.

Nothing too exotic about multispectral imaging. From my experience it is usually used in satellite imagery using false colours to try to illuminate something. Usually like vegetation, lack of vegetation, or water (Or really anything a certain wavelength of detection bounces off of that other wavelengths do not).

Gamma irradiation? Hulk Smash? I know it is used in a passive sense for some astronomy type detectors, though I think usually the idea is to avoid it as interference in the collider sense. irradiation sound active, which doesn't really seem reasonable to me, then again maybe they are just being cute. When I look it up, seems to be used to kill organics, typically to sterilize medical equipment and food.

Radiation Chemistry? Is that a thing? I thought radiation was energy, not an element. Only context I can see is the study of the effect of radiation on chemistry, like radiation sickness. The only likely thing I can think of would be something like carbon dating which relies upon measuring the ambient radiation content and has something to do with when we first introduced radiation in the form of nuclear testing to the world. Perhaps they are just trying to have "fancy" carbon dating.
Edit: Also apparently a thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Not sure how it applies to this situation, but it could be it is just a diverse company that does many things.

NMR spectroscopy? Apparently it is a thing, because I looked it up. The Internets say:
http://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/...
Which looks awfully complicated.

Proprietary know-how. Which is my personal favorite. Sounds like something you put on a shitty resume. Might as well said "Street Smarts!"

Yup: LTEE.

I think that you are purposefully missing the point. Fact is, ADHD is a legitimate diagnosis that is made by psychiatrists (yes real medical doctors). However, much like a hypochondriac co-worker's "migraine", or whether that person using the handicapped parking spot is really handicapped, we humans tend to draw conclusions based on our own realities. In my experience, the toughest part about having ADHD is the public perception. Those of us with it can experience nasty feedback loops, whereby a lack of attention at any given moment (for instance, during a conversation) requires one to play catch-up, thus missing the next essential bit of information, and so forth. There are several methods of treatment, only some of which include drugs. Please educate yourself and be less condescending.

I guess he didn't notice that it's either a Republican or a Democrat stripping away our liberty, rights,privacy over the last century.
Never heard of the Repubmocrat tyranny.

You blame Politicians and not the black budget advisers?
It seems to me that if the political parties change and the infringements continue, then maybe the problem isn't with the political parties.
Do you think the NSA and CIA and dozens of other Agencies/Divisions are ever going to advise that there should be less infringement on civil liberties?

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I've always found this toe be interesting: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst140/MotelOfMysteries.html

A new business to allow the military-industrial complex to suck the marrow!

Well then you just don't have the right ants. These bastards are 1/4" long.

says, and he actually studies the topic experimentally

CO2 enrichment experiments in natural vegetation including forests and rangelands (both of which are agricultural as defined by USDA) usually show an initial increase in productivity that quickly comes to a hard stop as nitrogen limitation is expressed, usually within a few years. Same is true for unmanaged ecosystems.

If you value intellectual integrity, then you're going to have to reach for another argument for not doing anything about CO2 pollution. Or you could just follow what the data says.

I'm an xkcd fan, but this chart is just really, really bad science and abysmal health physics. It pervasively confuses the crucial difference between one-time external exposure ("radiation"), and ongoing internal exposure from ingestion of bioaccumulating radioactive isotopes (such as iodine-131, strontium-90, cesium-137). They're completely different exposure mechanisms and you simply can't compare them directly - except to say that eating or breathing in a radioactive particle is orders of magnitude worse than standing next to that particle and absorbing the radiation through the skin. Inverse square law for the win (or lose, in the human's case).

http://www.orcbs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/16rm_exposure.htm

The preprint is available, but is still pretty goddamn short.

The damage that happens in most motor cycle accidents means they aren't even useful for that.

Nope. From https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf:

"Motorcycle fatalities are not only our No. 1 source of organs, they are also the highest-quality source of organs, because donors are usually young, healthy people with no other traumatic injuries to the body, except to the head"

Plenty of other stuff on the web contradicting your ridiculous claim - if you just care to look.

I suppose you're a troll as well, but to hell with it, I'll bite.
Any celestial body large enough to have a sizable gravity (I am sure there's a threshold formula somewhere, but CBA to check) will take, in time, a spherical shape because of... GRAVITY! (applause in the background)

http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/031198.html

Although it is worth noting that Python has become an intro course for at least one large university (it's the required introductory course for all CS majors at Michigan State)

I'm not sure if that's a good move or not. When I was studying CS @ MSU, we started out with C++, and pretty much used that for most of the classes. The second class in the series was data structures and algorithms, and we basically had to recreate the STL, so you really had to learn how all the data structures (strings, vectors, etc.) were created. You'd be given a header file and you had to write the implementations. I'm not sure how you'd do that with Python since you seem to get most of those things for free.

Although it is worth noting that Python has become an intro course for at least one large university (it's the required introductory course for all CS majors at Michigan State)

And how does this relate to the fact that children are getting Diabetes type 2 younger and younger, at an increasing rate?

The answer is simple; carbohydrates.

Most of our carbs come from plants more closely related to grass(corn, wheat), than to a vegetable

Solution: eat grass fed animals, eat lots of root and leafy green vegetables and some fruit ... ditch the soda, pizza, pasta, burgers, donuts, etc.

Dark suckers.

"The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect."

Here's some basic statistics review for you: https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv46.htm [msu.edu]

"The Null Hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is no relationship between two variables. Establishing that there is a relationship between two variables is the first step in establishing whether there is a causal connection between two variables. "

:

I see that you have found other sources that confirm what I told you: the null hypothesis is the default hypothesis of no correlation ("no relationship" is just another way of saying "no correlation") between two variables (i.e. one variable does not change in any consistent manner when the other one does). I note that although you have clearly been looking, you have found no example of a null hypothesis that mentions causality. You won't, because "null" (which means "zero") hypotheses are exclusive to statistical correlation, and correlation is incapable of addressing questions of causality. So your special pleading that "natural variation as a cause of climate warming" should be regarded as a null hypothesis, and therefore exempted from the normal criteria applied to competing scientific hypotheses (e.g. to be based on a physically realistic mechanism, to make falsifiable predictions, and to be consistent with the known data) is a non-starter.

So, are you asserting that you've considered every possible cause for every temperature fluctuation?

Yes, climate scientists have considered every physically realistic mechanism that could potentially account for the rise in temperatures, including the ones that were likely responsible for past episodes of (what you call "natural") climate change. If you think you have a new one, then provide the hypothesis, and show evidence that it is both consistent with the known climate record and acting today.

No, it simply isn't. Put another way, if we had any sort of ability to do accurate modeling at that level, we'd be able to create a model for the stock market

Sorry, but this kind of clutching at rhetorical straws is silly. There is no relationship whatsoever between the physical mechanisms responsible for climate change and the economic and psychological mechanisms that determine movements of the stock market. Here's one rather obvious difference: if somebody comes up with a model that accurately predicts movements in stock prices, then people will change their investments based upon those predictions, which will alter the movements of the stock market in such a way that those predictions are no longer valid. Fortunately, we don't have to worry that the physics of climate will alter in response to what we know about it.

So you're now asserting climate science predicts a time travel effect, where future CO2 can effect present temperatures?

It predicts that increases in CO2 can either lead or follow warming, depending upon whether the warming is initiated by release of CO2 or by some other factor, such as a change in solar output. This is very elementary, and you would already know it if you'd bothered to learn anything about the actual science instead of deriving everything that you think you know from crank web sites.

2. The "null hypothesis" applies solely to statistical significance testing, and thus relates only to correlation, never to causality.
3. Hence, any statement with the word "cause" in it can never be a null hypothesis.

Wrong on both counts.

"The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect."

Here's some basic statistics review for you: https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv46.htm

"The Null Hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is no relationship between two variables. Establishing that there is a relationship between two variables is the first step in establishing whether there is a causal connection between two variables. "

So in considering causes of temperature fluctuations over a period of time, you must consider all factors: volcanic eruptions, solar radiance, time of year and time of day of measurement, short-term ocean current cycles like El Nino, particulate and CO2 pollution, etc.

So, are you asserting that you've considered every possible cause for every temperature fluctuation? Your assertion of complexity here is *exactly* the problem with taking GCMs, and asserting that they represent science. We already *know* our information is proxied, limited, and full of holes. To take us from a state of incredibly lacking knowledge, then plugging in fudge factors to predict what temperatures will be 50 years from now, much less pinning it mostly on a *single* molecule measured in parts per million sets bullshit detectors off to 11.

By appropriate statistical analysis and physical modeling, it is possible to dissect which factors affected temperature over a given period of time.

No, it simply isn't. Put another way, if we had any sort of ability to do accurate modeling at that level, we'd be able to create a model for the stock market that will tell us, to the nearest hundred, what the Dow Jones Industrial Average will be in 100 years. Humans are arguably *less* complicated than global climate, and you'd never go so far as to assume you could model markets with any sort of reasonable accuracy...or do you?

Sorry, but if you'd read any of the real science, you would know that this is a laughable argument, because it is exactly what climate science predicts.

So you're now asserting climate science predicts a time travel effect, where future CO2 can effect present temperatures?

Review Feynman, and try again :) http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/

Many universities have a technology use agreement that students and employees must agree to (whether they know it or not). http://lct.msu.edu/guidelines-policies/aup/ as an example. Quote: "Use of MSU IT resources is a privilege and not a right." I know this is a completely different university but it's one that I'm more familiar with. ASU may have something similar in their student handbook, I can't say for certain, but I wasn't able to find it on their website, so take my comments with a grain of salt. Regardless, internet provided by the university wouldn't fall under the same rules and regulations as internet you buy and pay for through your local ISP. The university has their own rules and regulations regarding internet usage which must be adhered to because THEY'RE providing the service to the students. Students could have just as easily gone off campus to continue to use change.org. I don't agree with censorship nor do I think that the university was right in their actions (reprimand the student(s) that are behind the malicious behavior rather than punishing everyone may have been a better course of action) but in the same breathe I don't think they overstepped their rights to regulate the internet they provide to students and employees. It doesn't seem any different to me than going to an internet cafe and having pornographic websites blocked. You're free to do as you wish when the internet service is yours but when you're leasing the service (which is essentially what is happening on college campuses) then you must follow whatever regulations the lessor imposes. If you don't like the rules and regulations then no one is stopping you from going elsewhere.