Slashdot Mirror

Even The Bush administration acknowledged AGW. Arguably, he opened the door for Obama.

No, it's not a non-issue, but it's a different kind of issue than most people realize. Remember the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the propaganda they pumped out last decade about how Linux and Open Source in general was a parasite on the tech industry, was enabling all sorts of illegal activities (such as terrorism - of course!), and attempted to publish a book claiming Linus Torvald's didn't really invent the Linux kernel? Microsoft was (and still is!) a major funder of this propaganda mill.

Think about the possible implications of a story like this: Could it generate calls to change the way the Linux kernel and programs that run under it are written? And now MS have their hooks sunk deeply into the kernel dev team. The SCO gambit (also funded by MS) failed, spectacularly. And the Astroturf de Tocqueville gambit failed, though not quite as spectacularly. And now we have MS "cooperating" in the development of Linux. And up pops a story that may justify an overhaul of Linux to make it controllable by MS Windows. Well, surprise, surprise! This "change of attitude" by MS is looking more and more like a subtler strategy to seize control of Linux rather than outright destroy it.

Here are two rebuttals from 2009!

Seriously, this plan is akin to "Let's set off Yellowstone, that will cool the earth - Patent Pending Intellectual Ventures".

The guy's "Ph.D." was in evolutionary psychology, which is Nazi-style ideology, not science. They just like to wear lab coats.

1

2

Your problem is that not only do you not understand what you are talking about, you don't even have the humility to acknowledge that someone besides yourself might be right. How about you assume nothing and refute my assertions with facts proven in science (and no, theories pulled out of some random PhD's ass is not interchangeable with hard science) instead of assuming (incorrectly) that you know more than others.

If you were actually familiar with testing, you would know that there are all manner of methods for accelerating natural phenomena (temperature, agitation, chemical preparation with precursors or the most favorable composition, simulating hundreds of lightning strikes per minute, etc). If you had actually read up on the subject, you would know that myriad of different methods have been tried to accelerate the "mineral soup to life" chemical evolution concept, and all have failed comically.

The reality is that even the most basic form of life (the bacteria, viruses being alive is questionable) is more complicated (in terms of individual moving parts) than the most complicated machine man has built (the microprocessor or space shuttle, take your pick). Bacteria are not simple and have their own DNA, organelles, proteins, etc. They are microscopic biological machines that do the same things that we do: they replicate, work together, adapt, etc all on their own http://scienceblogs.com/oscill... The argument that a bacteria, the simplest form of life that we know of, formed randomly by chance is pure fiction. Back in my day (and still, apparently: http://www.dictionary.com/brow... ), abiogenesis was known as chemical evolution (minerals to more and more complex chemicals, proteins, DNA etc until it became alive). The problem is it is pure fiction.

"First, for it to be secure, a theory which we know is flawed (Quantum Theory, does not account for Gravity) needs to hold up to an extremely precise level"

Quantum Field Theory makes extremely precise mathematical predictions, which have been shown correct in many experiments. Measuring the gravitational effect upon a particles momentum is nigh impossible due to how incredibly weak gravity is compared to the other forces (notice this is different from measuring the time dilation effects of different gravitational field strengths).

Precision:

These happen to be too low for crypto. For crypto we would need around 256 bits, i.e. around 1 in 10^76. Even only 128 bit crypto would be around 1 in 10^38.
I do agree that the level of precision is _very_ impressive for Physics, it is just not enough by a very long shot for secure crypto. At the precision level needed for crypto, gravity matters very much.

"First, for it to be secure, a theory which we know is flawed (Quantum Theory, does not account for Gravity) needs to hold up to an extremely precise level"

Quantum Field Theory makes extremely precise mathematical predictions, which have been shown correct in many experiments. Measuring the gravitational effect upon a particles momentum is nigh impossible due to how incredibly weak gravity is compared to the other forces (notice this is different from measuring the time dilation effects of different gravitational field strengths).

Precision:

So, which of the two is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science?

It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 1016. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.

In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:

g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)

Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).

Coupling Constants:
Strong Force = 1
Electromagnetic = 1/137
Weak = 10^-6
Gravity = 10^-39

That's bullshit. The anti-vax crap is on both sides of the political spectrum. The current President (a far right-winger) has spouted anti-vax BS, and there's been a bunch of it among religious groups who've then had outbreaks.

https://www.omicsonline.org/op...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

http://scienceblogs.com/insole...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...

But it's not just religious idiots who've latched onto the anti-vax hysteria, it's also some elements on the left, namely the loony ones who are also into various other "alternative medicine" hokum.

Remember, the "left" isn't a coherent, homogeneous group of people by any stretch, in fact it's a coalition of basically everyone who isn't right-wing. The right-wingers are generally conservative, which means they like the status quo, "traditional values", etc., so anyone who departs from this mindset is automatically left-wing, even though that can mean completely different philosophies ranging from simple "progressivism" (basically what Nordic countries have--democratic republics with a bunch of welfare state services and heavier regulation) all the way to actual communism. So the "left" includes irreligious people who want science and evidence-based thinking to determine public policy, and also fruity people who believe in garbage like "metaphysics" and the "ascended masters".

Quantum mechanics fails because it defies causality creating paradoxes they ignore. Ignoring basic conflicts in reasoning to support a theory make QM a religion not a science.

The fuck?

You are aware quantum physics involves actual tests that can - and have been performed . Quantum electro-dynamics produces results that are so accurate they have lead many to call it the most precisely tested theory in the history of science

the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:

g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)

Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).

'Causality' is not ignored, it's just a matter of fact that observable evidence from quantum physics demonstrates that there are in fact acausal events on the quantum scale. Just because you - and most people - don't understand the physics involved using common sense does not mean the theory fails.

No. Unless of course you're willing to cherry pick data to suit your needs rather than encompassing the entire picture.

True. Here is one octopus they caught on film.

Obligatory Otto the Octopus story:
Otto, an octopus living at the Sea Star Aquarium in Coburg, Germany, seems to have a flair for interior decoration. According to the aquarium directors he periodically rearranges all of articles in his tank to “suit his own taste better, much to the distress of his fellow tank inhabitants.” It is unclear if he actually prefers his home certain ways or if he’s just seeking attention. He has been known to juggle hermit crabs and to throw rocks against the glass walls and damaging them. But Otto’s greatest feat thus far concerned a bright spotlight that shone into his tank at night.
Apparently, Otto did not like the spotlight, so he hoisted himself out of the top of his cage and squirted water on it, causing a short circuit that killed the light and more. Said a spokesperson,”It was a serious matter because it shorted the electricity supply to the whole aquarium that threatened the lives of the other animals when water pumps ceased to work.” It took the directors three days to discern what had happened, and rather than turn off the light to appease Otto, they simply moved it higher so he couldn’t reach it. Nice guys.

No, it makes no sense. It doesn't even make nonsense.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn...

> The primate and artiodactyl lineages have diverged for roughly 80 million years — just the gradual accumulation of molecular differences in sperm and egg recognition proteins would mean that pig sperm wouldn’t recognize a chimpanzee egg as a reasonable target for fusion. Heck, even two humans will have these sorts of mating incompatibilities. Two species that haven’t had any intermingling populations since the Cretaceous? No way.

Except that you clearly didn't read what I wrote.

Dark matter was a hypotheses (what you call a "fudge factor") to explain the discrepancy between observations and gravity. There are several other hypotheses to explain this.

But each of these hypotheses then lead to OTHER predictions. You can look to see if those predictions are true or not. Only dark matter's predictions are observed. That makes it the hypotheses most likely to actually be true.

In case you were wondering modified Newtonian mecanics is an even BIGGER "fudge" factor. It claims gravity changes behaviour at very large distances (to literally the opposite of what it always does all the other times) - and offers absolutely no explanation for how this could happen.

For example any theory to explain the motion of galaxies leads to predictions about the amount of redshift in the universe. The observed redshift in the universe match that predicted by Dark Matter but NOT that predicted by MOND.

No theory is locked to a single observation. A theory explains an observation - but *always* leads to OTHER predictions: if the theory is true, then we would also see x and y and z. So we can go look to see if x and y and z are the way they would be if the theory was true.

We have strong evidence for dark matter because everything predicted BY dark matter theory (not the prediction of dark matter, the predictions BY dark matter) are matching observations.

http://scienceblogs.com/starts...

The entire point of this device is to violate CoM. That's what "reactionless drive" means; it's practically an oxymoron. The math model you refer to is called Relativity, and it describes the geometry of the universe from the subatomic level to the galactic, and for a wide range of energy levels. Relativity and spacetime are fundamental features of the universe, and they rely on two truths: that light speed is invariant, and that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Any subsequent theory will either find something wrong with those two principles (with really weird physical consequences), or it will also require conservation of momentum, because it's kind of baked in to spacetime that you need energy to accelerate.

But if you don't happen to like Relativity there are other ways to prove that CoM is a thing, because it does happen to be a fundamental feature of the universe and no physical theories we have would function without it. However, it's probably not even something unique to our universe, and more a consequence of Noether's theorem. That is to say, conservation laws exist as a mathematical consequence of, well, things like the laws of physics being the same everywhere.

The third option you were hoping for was the one where there is an effect but it is too small to be of any practical use. Sorry, but that's not on the list. It's hard to know if your math model is right, unless you measure it repeatedly and precisely. Relativity is probably only the second-most-precisely tested theory in science, I think the winner is Quantum Electrodynamics. Which also requires the conservation of momentum. So again, your two options are, "this device does not work" or "Noether's theorem doesn't apply and every physical theory is wrong".

There are a lot of people who are into science, but don't understand it. They like science fiction and are good cheerleaders for scientific causes. But the universe is inconveniently large for science fiction authors, so we have an entire category of literature in which the laws of physics are violated wholesale, and few people care to understand the distinctions. All of this other "star trek" stuff came true, so why not warp drives? Answer: because those are fiction. It's like believing in magic healing crystals, or unicorns. We are not ever going to have FTL travel or communications, nor will we have infinite energy generators. We have conclusively ruled those out as features of the universe, and that's a good thing. Because those are, again, mostly dependent on the laws of physics being the same everywhere, and if that is not true, it's unlikely that the "true" nature of the universe would ever be known, or knowable.

It's hardly even worth mustering the evidence against this device. We have proved to the fullest reaches of empiricism and mathematics that it is impossible, and the only people still interested in this idea are (ipso facto) those that prefer science fiction to science. Try not to be one of those.

"Could have fatal consequences" does not mean the same thing as "fatal", it means "potentially fatal". Something can be potentially fatal before someone actually dies, even if nobody ends up dying from it.

And about your medical claims, may I suggest you read something like this? It's rather long, but toward the end you will find this:

But it’s even more than that. As I mentioned above, According to the CDC, of the 2.6 million deaths that occur every year in the U.S., 715,000 occur in hospitals, which means that, if Makary’s estimates are correct, 35% of all hospital deaths are due to medical errors. But it’s worse than that. Remember that the upper estimate used by Makary and Daniels is 400,000 inpatient deaths due to medical error. That’s 56%—yes, 56%—of all inpatient deaths? Seriously? It’s just not anywhere near plausible that one-third to over one-half of all inpatient deaths in the US are due to medical error.

On its face, such a claim is very hard to believe, especially if you consider that, of those who died in a hospital, 75% were age 65 and over, and 27% were age 85 and over. That’s a lot of people prone to dying because they are old and ill, regardless of how good their care was. Add to that the fact that between 2000 and 2010, hospital deaths decreased 8% even though the number of hospitalizations increased 11%, and Makary’s numbers become less and less credible.

0.715 million people per year die in hospital, but not all those deaths are medical errors, people tend to end up in hospitals when they have serious health problems. Not being able to save a life is not automatically a medical error.

This is my favourite cartoon concerning this subject: http://scienceblogs.com/starts... concerning a game-theoretic (if one wants to be pompous, and one does) aspect of this. That is, a low carbon, breathable air, greener world is a better world anyway, so we are right to start down this road, with or without AGW.

Is this the same idiot?

"Based on what we currently think about inflation, this means that the Universe is at least 10^(30) times the size of our observable Universe! "

http://scienceblogs.com/starts...

I remember the number being 10^28, but these are just guesses... but still, that puts the relative size of the "actual" and observable universe at almost the relative size between YOU and a PLANCK LENGTH. (well, 10^35, but close!)

People in IT are effective researchers. No special knowledge is required beyond the ability to research information as required. I need very little expertise in any area what so ever, as long as I am capable of looking up that information and reading it and understanding it. A whole internet of experts on every imaginable subject, to access and gain the part of their expertise that they make available and that I require at that time. Now you can either accept the research that others have done and produced for others to access or in your world, only accept your own. How great is my expertise, great enough to look up the intellectual efforts of others and make use of it, it's called reading and unlike dead tree reading, I can look up the exact bit of information I am after through effective filtering of the information available http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn....

#5, axial tilt

"The gravitational push-pull of the Moon on iron deep inside Earth keeps it hot and molten"

This is why Mar's axial tilt wobbling is so extreme.

I have never said I do it all the time, just that, like you, I have.

I used to be a field technician and would use my phone while driving every day.

I could, but I don't.

Sounds like a regular and ongoing thing to me.
Here's a tip: people on the internet don't know you, they only know what you post and most don't read very carefully. Speak plainly and stick to the point. Use paragraphs when appropriate.

And regardless of the problem, the fact remains that these laws simply make it worse not better; which was my entire point.

If personal responsibility was no issue, I might be inclined to agree with you. As it is, you sound like you're trying to assign blame to someone else; in this case "it's not my fault that I am distracted in the car, the government shouldn't have MADE me look in my lap." I claim that the irresponsible drivers aren't being MADE to do anything, they either think they're not doing anything dangerous, they don't care, or they're just not thinking about the danger they're putting other people in. The fact is that we're simply not good at multitasking, and the comparison between texting while driving and drunk driving is well-earned.

Now I'm no expert, so I did a quick search. It looks like this was probably the earliest study into this issue, which supports your claim. There is more discussion about that study though, and a later study seems to contradict it.

Now that you've managed to have your little emotional outburst to my admission I have texted and drive before, perhaps you can argue on that point, or do you have nothing to offer other than anecdotes and hyperbole?

First you offered anecdotes about how your own driving changed after the passing of this law, expressed anger at the size of the fine, and suggested applying existing laws about careless driving; all without any comment regarding the actual danger of distracted driving. Your entire first post comes off as an indignant rant about a law you disagree with.

Then you blithely admitted that you continue to drive in a dangerous (your word, not mine) manner. You claimed "Everyone is still doing this. Everyone."

Now you claim the problem is with irresponsible drivers and hint that you're not part of the problem, and you try to shift the burden of proof to me, when you've given no arguments of substance yourself.

I'm touchy on this issue because it's personal to me. I'm not upset at you for your "admission [you] have texted and drive before"; I'm upset because you switched to a "much more dangerous" activity and made no indication that you are give a damn about the people you are putting in very real danger. As long as motor vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of death, some kind of effort must be made to improve the situation; people must be held accountable for their actions; ergo, punish those who needlessly endanger others. If you have some better solution please present it, the world will thank you.

All that is true, but there’s a further point worth making: climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial deals with the deaths of millions in the past, which it did nothing to cause, however morally odious it surely is. Global warming denial deals with the deaths of millions in the future, which it helps to cause, by crippling efforts to prevent them. And that’s something much worse, as is reflected in law: It’s not a crime to lie about murders in the past, except to hinder a police investigation, or prosecution; but it is a crime to tell enabling lies about future murders—it’s called conspiracy to commit murder.

Or

I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide – any genocide – coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.

This behavior has only encouraged people to use it for just asking about why this evaporation data didn't change prior to 2010.
And publish where? No reputable journal would risk the fight given the climate in science because it's "settled". I've sited far more than just myself, but I suppose actually reading the thread you're responding rather than the first post would be a bit much.

Climate Experts Agree On Human-Caused Global Warming

With carefully redefined terms, it is possible to make any statement truthful. For example, if we denounce any "skeptic" as not an expert (and worse), the above-quoted statement automatically truthful.

And if the denounced non-scientists insist on voicing their ridiculous opposition, we prosecute them as racketeers. Surely, such felons can not be considered "experts", can they be?

Problem solved — 100% unanimity achieved...

Well Big Pharma was involved, they were the target. Some lawyers paid Wakefield to concoct that bullshit in order to support their lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.

This is the Harper regime's ideology being played out in Australia all over again. Having lived through nine and a half years of this right-wing anti-science crap here in Canada, I really feel for our Aussie friends because gagging scientists is only the beginning.

Click to find out what happens next!

http://scienceblogs.com/starts...

Even that story links to Forbes for the "Answer".

Click to find out what happens next! http://scienceblogs.com/starts...

I see the same thing. It just redirects to some sort of "welcome to forbes" site.. Not sure if they want you to pay or what.

Forbes' site is a hot mess. Its even worse on mobile.

This seems to be a copy of the same article without Forbe's garbage:
  http://scienceblogs.com/starts...

here is a working link thats not thru forbes. http://scienceblogs.com/starts...

Allow me to link to the non-Forbes, non-ad-infested, non-ad-blocker-blocking version of the article: http://scienceblogs.com/starts...

As to Creationists, well, they are the prototypical pseudoscientists, and much of the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology.

Cite please?

The most comprehensive citation would be the book The Merchants of Doubt: http://www.amazon.com/Merchant...
But you could start here: http://scienceblogs.com/denial...

Every commit I make at work is required to have at least one peer review and its' recommended to have two and we are not selling security-related software.

You may vet your code all you want, but if someone compromises your build server's compiler, your binaries may contain backdoors anyway, just ask Ken Thomson

A, here it is.

Here
you
go.

According to this random guy, you're both right.

For the record, Stephanie Seneff pretty much appears to be bugfuck insane. She has somehow made a career lately by plotting exponentially growing things against other exponentially growing things and confidently proclaiming that one causes the other. Normally that would be hilarious, but she has a PhD in electrical engineering, so I'd expect her to be better at applied math.

"The last serious ... objection was overcome"

It seems they forgot these objections were overcome in the 70s.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregla...

Simply saying you're against it is just speech, so I'm trying to figure out what they're going to RICO them for.

Fraud. The cigarette companies were damaging people by intentionally deceiving them (and advertising to kids). So, to get a settlement from this, you'll need to show that:

1) Oil companies (or whoever) intentionally lied about what their scientists told them, or told their scientists to produce studies with the 'correct' result. I've skimmed through some of the documents provided by the link, and I'm not sure I see evidence of that.

2) They have to prove that someone was damaged. The cigarette companies didn't lose because they lied, they lost because their lies damaged people. The link says there are threats of future damage, but doesn't present evidence of any actual damage. That's something they will have to fix.

It's not illegal, unethical, or wrong to fund science. It's a good thing, even if oil companies do it. It's only unethical when they require a specific result, or otherwise pressure the scientist. The more funding we have for science, the better.

Computers are unable to understand positions. Take the final setup mentioned here - http://scienceblogs.com/evolut...

That's a good example. You don't really explain what it mean to 'understand' a position though. I consider "understand" to merely mean "recognize which branches are prunable."

You are a liar. Mussolini and the Catholic church were best buddies.

So? He had to get their support early on in his reign.

His both children were baptized, Catholicism was the state religion and marriage was controlled by the church.

Fascists and Nazis had a lighter touch when it came to religion than the Communists did. They often went through the motions of public religious observance. None of that stuff indicates a belief in Christianity.

For example, Mussolini supposedly advised some visiting Nazi leaders (in early 1937):

"The Catholic Church is like a rubber ball, if you don't keep up the pressure, it will return to its original shape."

Both Mussolini and Hitler repeated discoursed on the absolute nature of their ideologies. For example, this quote by Mussolini in the aftermath of the Italian retreat from North Africa.

We become strong, I feel, when we have no friends upon whom to lean, or to look to for moral guidance.

Notice the Christian-like appeal to God? I don't either.

Hitler played that game even more. There are plenty of quotes where Hitler played lip service to religion. In private, he had different things to say.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

To put that into context, being a Jew or a Bolshevik was a thing that could get you killed in Nazi Germany. So what fate would fall on those who clung to Christianity over the coming decades?

My take is that the various Fascist leaders planned on getting rid of religion at a later date when it was more politically convenient because just like the Communists, they saw religion as a rival power for the minds and hearts of their subjects. But it was a power that they wanted to get to acquiesce to their rule. Hence, the superficial displays of religious favoritism.

I use neural networks on a daily basis based on a very old design. There have been a few tweaks along the way, but still basically in continuous use: http://scienceblogs.com/neurop...

That's 600 Mya.

The actual genetic situation is substantially more complicated than your summary. Mitochondrial DNA indicates that Ashkenazic Jews (Jews from Eastern Europe) have a large influx of European women ancestors. See summary http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37821/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/. However, chromosomal DNA shows a major Middle Eastern component to the point where almost any Ashkenazic Jew is easily genetically distinguishable from a generic European http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/12/09/ashkenazi-jews-are-middle-east/. Moreover, around half of all Israeli Jews are not Askenaz but are rather descended from Sephardim and Mizrachim and the like (e.g. from Morocco, Spain, Iraq, Egypt, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel and have thus essentially zero European genetic ancestry.

Don't worry too much. UoT had this course, MIT still has Stephanie Seneff

...to trigger a massive government witch-hunt. We have criminalized learning about chemistry and then we wonder why we need so many H1B visas to supply chemists.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

http://www.telegram.com/articl...

Chemistry sets-one of the epic whirlpool nodes of government lunacy.

Huh. Never see ITS TECO, have you?

"When we look at the last 6,000 years, the impact of human activity on our climate is unmistakable. There are no major large natural cycles over the last 6,000 years ..." That's consistent with Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF) which shows that the world has been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.

I have little doubt that it is. So what? It is also INconsistent with even the IPCC's early temperature reconstructions. It also "conveniently" leaves out the MWP and the Little Ice Age...

Good grief. After Jane objected to my statement that "Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science," I showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements are consistent with those from the NAS and several peer-reviewed papers. I also showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements were more accurate than Jane/Lonny's repeated claims about the last 6,000 years.

As usual, in response Jane simply ignores all that and jumps to the next regurgitated contrarian talking point. Jane seems to have abandoned his objection to my statement that Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science. Now, Jane is claiming mainstream science itself is inconsistent.

Once again, Jane is fractally wrong. Long ago, I shared an IPCC graph of temperature reconstructions. Note that the axes of these temperature reconstructions are labeled with actual numbers. Despite Jane's claims, Marcott et al. 2013 isn't inconsistent with IPCC reconstructions, and both Marcott et al. and the IPCC show the MWP and the Little Ice Age.

Why does Jane dispute this? Asking Jane for a link is unpleasant and unproductive, but Jane seems to be confusing the IPCC 1990 Fig 7.1(c) hand-drawn cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Note that this cartoon cites two papers, both of which are mainly about the climate in Europe, and notes "... it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global...".

Why is Jane surprised that an actual global temperature reconstruction from 2013 isn't identical to a hand-drawn cartoon from 1990 which appears to be mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe? Maybe Jane's surprised because he used to cite the "Wegman Report" before he realized they had blatantly misrepresented this cartoon by (accidentally?) adding numbers to the scale and redrawing the curve to make it look less like a cartoon.

But Wegman's (accidental?) "mistakes" don't change the fact that it was a hand-drawn cartoon mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe, and that its axis wasn't labeled with actual numbers.

It's strange that Jane confused this unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction, because Jane often criticizes graphs with no numbers and no labels on th

"When we look at the last 6,000 years, the impact of human activity on our climate is unmistakable. There are no major large natural cycles over the last 6,000 years ..." That's consistent with Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF) which shows that the world has been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.

I have little doubt that it is. So what? It is also INconsistent with even the IPCC's early temperature reconstructions. It also "conveniently" leaves out the MWP and the Little Ice Age...

Good grief. After Jane objected to my statement that "Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science," I showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements are consistent with those from the NAS and several peer-reviewed papers. I also showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements were more accurate than Jane/Lonny's repeated claims about the last 6,000 years.

As usual, in response Jane simply ignores all that and jumps to the next regurgitated contrarian talking point. Jane seems to have abandoned his objection to my statement that Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science. Now, Jane is claiming mainstream science itself is inconsistent.

Once again, Jane is fractally wrong. Long ago, I shared an IPCC graph of temperature reconstructions. Note that the axes of these temperature reconstructions are labeled with actual numbers. Despite Jane's claims, Marcott et al. 2013 isn't inconsistent with IPCC reconstructions, and both Marcott et al. and the IPCC show the MWP and the Little Ice Age.

Why does Jane dispute this? Asking Jane for a link is unpleasant and unproductive, but Jane seems to be confusing the IPCC 1990 Fig 7.1(c) hand-drawn cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Note that this cartoon cites two papers, both of which are mainly about the climate in Europe, and notes "... it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global...".

Why is Jane surprised that an actual global temperature reconstruction from 2013 isn't identical to a hand-drawn cartoon from 1990 which appears to be mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe? Maybe Jane's surprised because he used to cite the "Wegman Report" before he realized they had blatantly misrepresented this cartoon by (accidentally?) adding numbers to the scale and redrawing the curve to make it look less like a cartoon.

But Wegman's (accidental?) "mistakes" don't change the fact that it was a hand-drawn cartoon mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe, and that its axis wasn't labeled with actual numbers.

It's strange that Jane confused this unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction, because Jane often criticizes graphs with no numbers and no labels on th

It's been done. The results were crap.

Shall we have an argument about what makes art or not now?

Yes, please - if it can be done without insults, trolling and ad hominem attacks. It is then called "a discussion", and not only are - AFAIK - discussions the very purposing of Slashdot comments, discussions can be fruitful and interesting.

But to suggest that ONLY live music can be music is... just silly in this day and age.

Disagree, strongly so. Let me illustrate this with an example. Could you pretend you had a talk with another person, whenever all you'd had was a telephone conversation with that person ? No, you couldn't. Having an actual talk implies the visibility of hand gestures, facial expressions and body language, as well as the two of you being in the same acoustical environment, something even a very good video & audio recording can not provide. Hence, having an actual talk requires physical presence. I am saying that hearing actual music requires hearing that music live. See the informal Celibidache quote in one of my comments further up.

It is certainly a consequence of technology providing us with the possibility to have cheap copies of recordings of sound and images that uncounted millions of people equal, in their mind, "a recording of music" with actual "music". It is not because of uncounted millions of people doing so that making that equalization is also valid, or a mere tautology. So, I am just doing the best I can in trying to get things right. Even if that involves saying an inconvenient truth.

How does that help? If the backdoor is hardcoded to be added in VS then you will not find the backdoor by scraping the 'disclosed' source code.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodma...