Slashdot Mirror

The point was that scientists have claimed several things in the past that turned out to be false and that was even known to them to be false, usually because of political pressure and the threat of pulling grant money for going against the grain. Your attempt to distract from this point is laughable.

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming quote: "the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data."

There are hundreds of weather monitoring stations that are installed improperly, including beside runways where hot jet exhaust will blow on them and next to concrete structures that will throw off measurements in either direction due to heat rolling off of and sunlight reflecting off of the concrete, or my favorite: the ones placed above trash burn barrels. Lest you attempt to sneer "Fox News!!!11" as if that's a valid logical dismissal, they are not the only ones mentioning this issue.

Then there's this handy Wikipedia list of scientists that go against the consensus.

Personally, I doubt that 50-100 years of temperature measurements, regardless of accuracy, is sufficient to create climate models that are accurate since planetary climate change takes place over many thousands of years, not mere centuries. We have insufficient data to know if we are warming because of humans or if it's all just coincidental correlation based on a warming cycle that was set to happen anyway. My position is one of climate agnosticism; we simply do not have enough information and anyone claiming to have enough is making extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

"Logical Fallacies -- Changing the Subject: The fallacies in this section change the subject by discussing the person making the argument instead of discussing reasons to believe or disbelieve the conclusion. While on some occasions it is useful to cite authorities, it is almost never appropriate to discuss the person instead of the argument."

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/subject.htm

You're committing the logical falacy of appeal to consequences. Whether or not you like the remedy has no bearing on whether the problem exists.

Fuck the fucking fucker for fucking not fucking writing fucking 'fuck' un-fucking-self-fucking-censored.

Fuck!

Tim Minchin, is that you?

This is nearly as bad as Firefox using your GTK Icon Theme for the back/forward buttons under Linux - it only works on Linux (not Mac and Windows), and even then only if you have GTK and an icon theme installed! It's a travesty! How dare they build a feature that only works on one platform!

That's got to be one of the best examples of the fallacy of false analogy I have ever seen. This discussion has nothing to do with how a CROSS PLATFORM application chooses to display static content. This has everything to do with creating proprietary extensions to established web standards. Would you like a good analogy? Here's one: Silverlight. Microsoft pushes a proprietary technology and It ends up being used. Since this technology isn't cross-platform (Moonlight doesn't support the latest versions right away) web content is not viewable on a great many devices.

Look what happened to the web when IE6 was the dominant browser. Look at how many pages did not render correctly on other browsers because they were written with only IE in mind and not the open standards. I'm perfectly OK with IE using the GPU to accelerate the rendering of web content as long as the actual web code is written to an open standard and does not require some sort of proprietary windows-only plugin or activex controls or something to work.

It's interesting though that they don't. Atheists and theists often come to the same conclusions on moral questions, even if the latter have to adjust their reading of their holy texts to what they actually feel is right. Dawkins describes this very well here: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/dawkins_on_mora.html

It's irritating to have links on words if the href has nothing to do with the anchor text .

Hello. I'm a creationist, and I read Slashdot. My field of expertise is computing, but I also have a graduate degree in philosophy which included "philosophy of science", and I like a good argument. I would like to address point #3 briefly.

In your first paragraph (of point #3) you point out a strong correlation between belief in intelligent design and certain religious views. You are appealing to the prevailing Slashdot bias against organised religion when you do this

Well, that and being informed about US politics pretty much gave you away as being not from around here.

At the very least it means you're not the Secretary of State.

for how much longer? How soon before being required to show ID when crossing a State Line? How soon before being required to show ID when checking into Hotels/Motels? How soon before being required to check in with the local police station when you intend to stay somewhere more than a few hours? How soon before having to get written permission before you can travel more than so many miles from your nominated place of residence?

Slippery slope people... they'll nibble away at your "freedom" by adding little "reasonable seeming" requirements here and there... all in the name of protecting you from terrorism/saving the children from pedophiles/whatever the current "bete noir" is...

It's interesting that that you mentioned the "slippery slope," since this is a well-known logical fallacy.

Oh, look; an example of argumentum ad hominem! But that's okay; much of what passes for debate in Global Warming circles looks like a walk down all of Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies; I mean we have plenty of Fallacies of Distraction, lots of Appeals to Motive in Place of Support, and an almost endless supply of Changing the Subject in place of real debate. Hell; just roll down his entire logical fallacies table of contents and I'm sure you'll see at least a dozen of these fallacies used in support of Global Warming by the experts at the United Nations.

And nevermind that the entire Kyoto Accord is essentially based on an Appeal to Consequences: while we may not know for certain if and how much damage we're causing we must pass and enforce Kyoto: just think of the children...

Oh, look; an example of argumentum ad hominem! But that's okay; much of what passes for debate in Global Warming circles looks like a walk down all of Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies; I mean we have plenty of Fallacies of Distraction, lots of Appeals to Motive in Place of Support, and an almost endless supply of Changing the Subject in place of real debate. Hell; just roll down his entire logical fallacies table of contents and I'm sure you'll see at least a dozen of these fallacies used in support of Global Warming by the experts at the United Nations.

And nevermind that the entire Kyoto Accord is essentially based on an Appeal to Consequences: while we may not know for certain if and how much damage we're causing we must pass and enforce Kyoto: just think of the children...

Oh, look; an example of argumentum ad hominem! But that's okay; much of what passes for debate in Global Warming circles looks like a walk down all of Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies; I mean we have plenty of Fallacies of Distraction, lots of Appeals to Motive in Place of Support, and an almost endless supply of Changing the Subject in place of real debate. Hell; just roll down his entire logical fallacies table of contents and I'm sure you'll see at least a dozen of these fallacies used in support of Global Warming by the experts at the United Nations.

And nevermind that the entire Kyoto Accord is essentially based on an Appeal to Consequences: while we may not know for certain if and how much damage we're causing we must pass and enforce Kyoto: just think of the children...

Oh, look; an example of argumentum ad hominem! But that's okay; much of what passes for debate in Global Warming circles looks like a walk down all of Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies; I mean we have plenty of Fallacies of Distraction, lots of Appeals to Motive in Place of Support, and an almost endless supply of Changing the Subject in place of real debate. Hell; just roll down his entire logical fallacies table of contents and I'm sure you'll see at least a dozen of these fallacies used in support of Global Warming by the experts at the United Nations.

And nevermind that the entire Kyoto Accord is essentially based on an Appeal to Consequences: while we may not know for certain if and how much damage we're causing we must pass and enforce Kyoto: just think of the children...

Oh, look; an example of argumentum ad hominem! But that's okay; much of what passes for debate in Global Warming circles looks like a walk down all of Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies; I mean we have plenty of Fallacies of Distraction, lots of Appeals to Motive in Place of Support, and an almost endless supply of Changing the Subject in place of real debate. Hell; just roll down his entire logical fallacies table of contents and I'm sure you'll see at least a dozen of these fallacies used in support of Global Warming by the experts at the United Nations.

And nevermind that the entire Kyoto Accord is essentially based on an Appeal to Consequences: while we may not know for certain if and how much damage we're causing we must pass and enforce Kyoto: just think of the children...

Oh, look; an example of argumentum ad hominem! But that's okay; much of what passes for debate in Global Warming circles looks like a walk down all of Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies; I mean we have plenty of Fallacies of Distraction, lots of Appeals to Motive in Place of Support, and an almost endless supply of Changing the Subject in place of real debate. Hell; just roll down his entire logical fallacies table of contents and I'm sure you'll see at least a dozen of these fallacies used in support of Global Warming by the experts at the United Nations.

And nevermind that the entire Kyoto Accord is essentially based on an Appeal to Consequences: while we may not know for certain if and how much damage we're causing we must pass and enforce Kyoto: just think of the children...

Then he said "we have never been stay the course", and ""the us doesn't torture". Oh, did you say "China"? I thought you were talking about Tony Snow. I'm sure if you asked Snowjob if he were getting fired^Wpromoted after the Republican catastrophe^Wvictory at the polls next week, he'd tell you he never worked for Bush, and we never invaded Iraq.

Hatch caused an overnight controversy on June 17, 2003 by proposing that copyright owners should be able to destroy the computer equipment and information of those suspected of copyright infringement, including file sharing. In the face of criticism, especially from technology and privacy advocates, Hatch withdrew his suggestion days later, after it was discovered that Sen. Hatch's official website was using an unlicensed JavaScript menu from United Kingdom based software developer Milonic Solutions. Milonic founder Andy Woolley stated that "We've had no contact with them. They are in breach of our licensing terms."

Hatch caused an overnight controversy on June 17, 2003 by proposing that copyright owners should be able to destroy the computer equipment and information of those suspected of copyright infringement, including file sharing. In the face of criticism, especially from technology and privacy advocates, Hatch withdrew his suggestion days later, after it was discovered that Sen. Hatch's official website was using an unlicensed JavaScript menu from United Kingdom based software developer Milonic Solutions. Milonic founder Andy Woolley stated that "We've had no contact with them. They are in breach of our licensing terms."

That's what Zappa thought too

1. Argumentum ad hominem (tu quoque).

2. Commentary regarding Clinton's wiretaps.

3. Interesting article from the right about Clinton's requests for wiretapping authority, 5 years before 9/11.

-Mike

However, I'm not making the "if you haven't done anything illegal, then you have nothing to fear" argument. Rather, I'm saying "if you run afoul of the law, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite you".

Stevens is known to be very powerful in the Senate

If anyone remembers the "Bridge to No Where" contorversy you can thank Ted Stevens for trying to sneak it in. There's an interesting article titled Others respect Stevens' fury from the Anchorage Daily News that profiles him. It's lengthy but it helps explain why this guy is pretty powerful.

If you read the ADN article, they reference a meltdown that was featured in a memorable Jon Stewart piece on a coot off between Stevens and Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia. Brilliantly funny.

You should see what Bush had to say about the global warming news.

Richard Dawkins, the well-known Oxford biologist, has been pushing for this lately. His two-hour series on Channel 4 in Britain, investigates religion the way 60 Minutes investigates scams. Part I, "The God Delusion", includes a visit to a US megachurch in which the interviewer asks the preacher some tough questions. He also visits Lourdes, and asks questions about the reported miracle cure rate and the types of miracles recorded. It's consumer activism applied to religion.

(The audio of the show is available on the site above, and plays fine. The video is available on BitTorrent but seems to have some formatting problems.)

I got a few...

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - Aug 5, 2004

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the 'truth' to sink in. You gotta catapult the propaganda." - May 25, 2005

"Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision and they end up alienating decent people across the globe." - Oct 27, 2005

yet these people cant even find one of the evil countrys people always talk about like North Korea...

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002454.html

actualy im making a small reference to this clip
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002454.html

note the replacement of Australia with the word North Korea and that no one noticed :P

As a descendent from 16th century Heugonauts, I must disagree.

In fact, here's an excerpt from some rant that I googled, and while is is a rant, it does get to the point:

"righteous Catholics killing good Heugonauts slaughtering devout Lutherans attacking righteous Catholics on the Continent; with righteous Catholics in England and Ireland killing good Anglicans in England while those good Anglicans slaughtered the devout Presbyterians of Scotland who massacred the righteous Catholics who attacked from Wales and Ireland out on the British Isles, ad infinitum and every bit of it driven by Divine Right monarchs allied, and constantly changing alliances with, groups of people supporting competing and antagonistic Christian beliefs" .

I think the point is that ALL religion ends up perverse, as people do perverse and evil things with great ease and little pain to the conscience when they can hide in their religion.

Is it a humiliation or triumph for mankind that it can build a machine that can defeat itself?

Human's should not feel humiliated at all. Indeed a great player like Kasparov can still embarrass the strongest chess program if he is given a little information on how it is programmed. If humans are expected to play these programs blind, and programmers have full access to the game records of the strongest grandmasters, is it really surprising that the humans lose? Kasparov has shown that with solid understanding of the opposing program and access to its playing record it is still possible for the human to compete. The fact that there has been counterattack on chess computers at all since Kasparov/Deep Blue is a tribute to the human mind!

I've found that tea has fewer negative affects than coffee, such as abdominal cramping. Tea seems to be less of a diuretic, meaning you don't end up as dehydrated and "hung over" a the end of the day after drinking tea. In addition, black teas supposedly have antioxidants which are actually beneficial, though I'm not sure how thoroughly evaluated these claims are.

If you decide to go with tea, make sure to do it right. Nothing will turn you off from tea faster than a crappy bag of Lipton in a cup of lukewarm water, as most restaurants in the US serve it. Read the late Douglas Adams' treatise on how to brew a cup of tea properly.

Also, pick a good brand. I have found none better than Taylor's of Harrogate* (made in the UK but available at fancy us grocery stores) Earl Grey**. I think the Starbucks brand (Tazo) is too bitter and astringent. Get the loose leaf variety of Taylor's (not teabags) and add 1.5-2 teaspoons per cup to a warmed french press. Pour in nearly boiling water and let sit for about 3-4 minutes. Serve in a warmed teacup with a wedge of lemon or lime***.

You'll end up with something that gives you an entirely different feeling than coffee -- mellow, yet envigorating.

* I don't work for or represent Taylor's of Harrogate, just a customer.
**Try the Lapsang Souchong flavor, which is smoked tea. Great for the wintertime.
***You will find it is vastly superior to the Earl Grey with lemon most replicators produce.

I've posted all the games in pgn, HTML with diagrams, and also available in a Java Viewer

I've posted copies of all the games played so far they are available in pgn, html, and you can play through them on a java viewer. Here is the link