If you have your own cell plan, some organizations will pay a fixed rate monthly as a subsidy for any individuals who are expected to always be available by phone. Does this qualify as "government provided" if that organization is a one of the government? This might be a really shady if so, personal cell phones with their subscriptions subsidized = signing over privacy? And what if the job requires you to have constant communication either by a phone provided to you or a subsidy on your existing service?
The personal failing of the examiners, no. The collective failure of a chain of people who are supposed to uphold patent law where clearly prior art exists, and yet not one of them could produce one piece of evidence of it? Only a fundamental level of stupidity can be to blame for this. These people shouldn't be examining patent applications. If you can't even comprehend the patent, or the legalese in which it's written, you shouldn't be working there.
And as for an incentive: if they do it right the first time, we won't have to waste the time of the courts paid for by tax dollars with frivolous patent litigation down the road when a patent like this is inevitably used in what can only be described as extortion.
It appears that the declining quality of education in this country has failed to teach you the concept of synonyms. This patent application was filed in 2008, that it took 10 years to be filed with ample demonstration that the technology in question is highly successful and lucrative should be grounds for rejection per se.
it appears that the declining quality of education in this country is reaching all the way to the patent registrars themselves. What a fine example of stupidity and.. dare I say.. incredible ignorance we have here. Honestly, who the hell hasn't heard of Facebook? Where do they find these people?
Alt+F opens the file tab in most applications (including office), it works in 2007, and I don't manually click 'File'. That dropdown appeared and I thought "wtf, *facepalm*" because I knew it would be a question I'd have to answer a million times.
were those who were tasked with writing the software powering these copiers?
Gee, this software may be used in a government office where highly sensitive documents may be scanned. I won't really "delete" any files though, because they might want to recover them, but that's advanced stuff, so I shouldn't inform them that I'm making that copy, it should be a surprise when they call in for support! And in our models where we do allow deleting, we'll just quietly move them to another directory, again for the same purpose.
Perhaps there was some miscommunication when their bosses told them to "shred the files when you're done with them." I can see how that might be somewhat vague in this industry.
Perhaps we just need disclosure on the real cost of manufacture (in terms of carbon emissions) vs that of the offered savings throughout the car's predicted lifetimes. Further, for electric cars, this must also take into account the method by which the electricity being used to power the car was made. I do believe offering a metric such as this for new car buyers (or for prospective congressional imposed limits, which are based in a metric that in fact means very little, and as a result does almost nothing) would better convey how "green" their choice of car might be. And finally we might want to also count in the effects of the materials used (both during manufacturing, lifetime, and post-mortem). Something like this should reflect the total damage the vehicle may do to the environment. I would not at all be surprised if your average small, lightweight car running on gasoline with no extra gimmicks or "special technologies" would be less damaging than the extreme case of over-engineered hybrids and electric cars alike. But this is all but obvious to anyone who has an enlightened view on the so-called "impact of a vehicle."
In summary: the metric of MPG alone is all but useless. But we're not surprised that this is proposed from a congress of idiots most of whom don't even understand how the simplest things around them are made nor work. Perhaps we ought to get some real intellect to represent our people.
It's a fleetwide average. This means they will likely offer vehicles with very high gas mileage to offset their SUVs and sports cars. For instance, add just 2 cars to a 10 car lineup that are purely electric (0 MPG), and you reduce the required MPG of the other 10 by 5.42 on average.
Time to get our forks ready tbqh. What's odd is the latest GA install of community server on mysql.com doesn't work on win7 64bit. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work on 32bit either, though 5.5 and a slightly older 5.1 work fine. Coincidence, or a glimpse of the future?
I'd take what you said a little further and claim that "formal education" has almost nothing to do with a person's ability as a programmer. What you learn in the space of 4 to 8 years, or more, depending on degree (at the upper end of that scale you aren't USUALLY a practicing developer, rather a researcher), pales in comparison with what you would learn writing a few mid level to large applications and even reading open source code. You quickly get faced with problems that aren't logically laid out for you in a path of section to section from a book where the leaps to be made are minimal because the author is doing all of the cognitive work for you, and those first few big ones are tough, you actually have to sit there and try to come up with something original, but you know some theory already, and higher level math helps with the problem solving techniques. Solving those problems, coming up with elegant solutions or efficient algorithms to perform some action, you're learning a lot more than you would in most schools in the US (this isn't true for some of the top schools where their programs are actually reflective of what a CS program SHOULD be, not just cut and dry boring as hell theory that really doesn't teach you much except how to memorize shit).
Further, it's generally not the education that enables people who end up being awesome programmers. Every one of them that I know learned almost everything they know on their own and started early on in life working with computers and was drawn to an interest of writing programs. I learned more personally in 5th grade reading a book on IA-32 assembly than I did in the 2 years of computer science I actually took at one of these god forsaken schools in the US. It's about more than just wanting to get a degree in the subject or making money, it's because we have a passion for it, enjoy it, and it's really fun to do after all. It's solving puzzles, and after all, when you solve a really tough one, you feel good and it can make you money or fame! It's also freedom; you realize you can do anything you want with that little computer in front of you and it's empowering. If you ever want to do something, you CAN, there's no "no, you can't do that" (yes, I am ignoring the law because the law inhibits freedom of expression and thought, and as long as you don't do something EVIL, you should be OK, despite what large corporations with billions of dollars and lots of attorneys and lobbyists at capitol hill getting legislation that protects their empires of wealth may say).
As to why this generally means programmers from India are worse than their US counterparts; it's all about culture. In India, as a culture, that type of personal exploration (yes, laugh at my poor choice of words) and discovery into problem solving isn't held as highly esteemed as it is in the US and some other countries. We pride ourselves on technology and intelligence, not singularly on religion or tradition. So it makes sense that kids become fascinated early on with technology and a portion of those ask the question "why?" and then follow through looking for the answer which leads them inexorably to this field or one of the other closely related ones: math, electrical engineering, physics, etc, as they pertain to technology. With a society so immersed in technology, it's easy to believe that more people will be interested in learning what makes that stuff tick, and further, how they can make their own little toys.
I will say though that I have seen good Indian programmers. It's very rare but I would wager where there's one, there's at least a handful more. But close to 95% of the Indian CS students I see are misguided or just plain terrible at it. It seems like they come here to get a degree then to make money at a low wage, and because programmers are such a huge export from India, finding work with that degree is "easy." I've also seen the actual source code output from some of these offshore Indian firms. Honestly, I was almost floored at the terrible quality.
MITM'ing a single client is trivial. MITM'ing a single website and all users who connect to it is trivial (though a bit more involved).
MITM'ing every SSL protected site from every single client is a logistics nightmare that's almost impossible, NOT impossible, but completely and totally ridiculous. A government doesn't want to monitor EVERY website, they want to hit those through which the most information flows, and those with a high probability that may be violating their censorship rules but hiding with technology.
This argument started by pointing out that if google went to SSL only in China that it would be flying under the radar, but in fact a MITM against JUST google is more than feasible and possible, and it doesn't matter if you get detected, they aren't trying to hide it, you have NO privacy in China. If a client fails because it has a cached credential, the user will probably hit refresh and cause the client to download a fresh copy from the server (aka the MITM fake copy). SSL can be broken via MITM but in order to do an all-scale, without being detected, you have to have every SSL CA completely ignorant and every owner of a server ignorant. That is, you can't allow for someone running a server or CA to compare one of their legit certs against one brought down by a client. It's not too hard to detect, but even so, this entire argument is moot if China has their hands in the local CAs and if they force all local sites/servers to use local CAs for their SSL, then they have all the private keys and MITM is completely unneeded.
BTW, the only people worried about not being caught doing MITMs are trying to covertly grab data. Trojans may replace every SSL cert with a fake one generated locally and perform a MITM to grab credit card data etc. Again, it's not hard to detect (wireshark would make it really obvious) but the vast majority of users in that situation wouldn't know how to figure out if their SSL is compromised in the first place, let alone if they even have a trojan unless an A/V was telling them. And if detected, the authors try to remain anonymous by hiding behind huge clouds of zombies. In this case, I would argue, anonymity isn't really important when you're trying to censor.
Yes, SSL is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. The reason certs make it more difficult is because the handshake has been certified by a 3rd party, so in order to truly perform a man-in-the-middle, you need complete control over the connection to both the "secured" server and the CA. If you ACTIVELY control both of those connections, you can force the client to believe that the cert is valid. You don't even have to own the CA, you just need to own the pipes.
This still doesn't work. SSL is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, if you control enough of the flow of information in a country. If you have 100% unfettered control over the network traffic on a single machine, you simply make the browser thing the cert you're seeing is certified by (insert cert authaurity here) but in reality the key they get is one generated by (evil group here), then after traffic is encrypted by the computer in question, it is decrypted at the roadblock then re-encrypted using the proper key to the SSL protected server. The other direction is similar.
Since China owns every route of traffic in/out of their country and has control over it, and any CA's within china, it can most likely see the plaintext of all of that traffic anyway. Hell, if a CA operates in China, they probably are being forced to hand over their private keys to China for packet sniffing. SSL isn't all that secure when someone has complete control over your traffic. Nothing is really, except maybe quantum cryptography (for now).
I have something similar set up for tracking and individualizing of e-mails for any kind of application. Postfix + PHP page to edit virtual users = win. And being capable of putting such a setup together should get you points for any IT related application, if they notice it.
I read a few and found this true of all of them. I've read hundreds of mathematical papers and found this false with all of them.
It isn't surprising though, since mathematics is a real science and what's going on here is psuedoscience. CRU data isn't all of it. If someone posted a mathemats or physics paper and claimed this proof was derived using a trick or data that was withheld but we should just "believe them, look at all this wonderful result we end up with", they would be ridiculed and dismissed from the community. But let's brush that requirement aside for the ever-more-intelligent than everyone else climatologists.
We have an assumption of innocence in that area. In science, we have a presumption of incorrectness. Speaking as a math major, what these guys consider "science" is absolutely pathetic. A huge majority of it is assumed without much challenge (or an impossibility to prove it's actually accurate) and then data is withheld from the public regarding a final conclusion. Absolutely appalling. None of it is admissible as science.
Now prove that this is the only data set that is used to make climate change observations. If not, then this is not the data I speak of. This is just some data. I can present to you hundreds of terabytes of data that isn't used to make those observations, it still doesn't mean that what they've done is at all admissible as science.
Ok. Of course they're not just averaging data, that's a completely pointless metric when it comes to weather. But let me ask you this. Why isn't all of that data just dumped into the public then the process by which the selections of which data to use are made public (we dropped station X because Y). You say this is how it works but we honestly really don't know (because we can't, we don't have access to this stuff) if it's only being dropped because it doesn't jive with the presupposed result. And removing data because some of it is determined to be "bad"? But if we define "bad" as anything that makes it difficult for us to show a warming trend...
The simple fact is: who gives a shit why data is removed. The credibility is absolutely 0 until all of it.. ALL OF IT.. bad data included is RELEASED with exactly what analyses were made to determine what data to drop, followed by the processes by which the final results are obtained so that anyone else who follows the same process and agrees with the logic of dropping data (yes, we agree it's bad) will end up with the same verified result. I do guarantee you that there's nothing about meteorology that's so incredibly complicated that people who aren't in an elite select few can't possibly comprehend or understand the results. But when you come out and claim with data of which a percentage has been completely eliminated (and we can't see it) that the earth is warming because of humans (which these studies DO NOT SUPPORT by the way, temperate studies cannot explicitly prove this) that we must turn around and spend trillions of dollars globally, throw incredible taxes on everyone for the sake of "saving the planet," we'd like to see why. If that can't be furnished, no thanks. We'd rather die than risk being bullshitted yet again.
Why would this only apply to software? We see that in digital media if you purchase a copy, you OWN that single copy, though you're not permitted to make another copy (while the original remains in existence) unless it's fair use (personal backups, short clips in an academic media presentation shown to a small group of people, etc). So then I can watch my DVD on *ANY* DVD player I want (well OK there's been some gray area here, sue me). I can listen to that CD I bought on any CD player I want, and I can rip the songs to mp3 format and listen to them on any mp3 device I have. Why is it that software has this plushy magical "oh noes we're so special we must have special rules in the copyright law" belief? As far as copyright goes, it's been found in federal cases that when someone purchases a copy of a copyrighted material, he/she OWNS THAT EXACT COPY and should therefore be able to do with it as he/she pleases insofar as it does not violate copyright law. We've seen that making copies of software is fine as long as it's "fair use" as well (personal copies, backups, installing it on different machines wherein it doesn't violate the licensing agreement -- as in maximum of 1 machine may have it INSTALLED at any time). So then what's with this judge saying that it's unlawful for someone to take a copy of a piece of software that the purchaser OWNS and saying that they have absolutely *NO RIGHT* to copy it onto another machine that they also own, wouldn't this just be another case of fair use? And technically, if somehow Apple has made a case that copying their software is a violation of the rules of this universe (or whatever bullshit they are spouting here), what about the intermediate copies made loading the software into memory for execution? If I put in RAM not cleared by Apple and/or its corporate bed buddies, and that software is loaded onto that RAM, what then? If I connect any device via USB that has a processor that might serve to run any portion of the software AT ALL (such as shared execution or something, granted this is a contrived example), would this violate some kind of law (maybe that I can't append USB devices to a computer with USB ports?) If I attach an external drive to this machine am I not permitted to copy the data over to it (say I'm upgrading or re-installing OSX)? If I attach a second monitor NOT sold by Apple or "approved" in any manner (just a standard DVI or VGA enabled monitor), can't I have the display run to my second monitor? Can't I change the video card for a better one in some models (not sure on this one)?
It sounds to me, if those situations are completely legal, then there's absolutely no way that it can be illegal for someone to copy and run the software on another machine, because the above conditions are identical to doing so. From where is this oddity of law coming? It's inconsistent with the copyright laws we've seen but at the same time claims to be a copyright violation? Software is independent of hardware. Unless their software in some way relies solely on the hardware being sold (ie, it's part of the software product, part A doesn't work without part B and vice versa). Otherwise I see this as a tie-in which have been found to be illegal in a lot of cases: you can only buy this product from us (not just at a discount, literally *ONLY*) IF you also purchase another product from us (where this second product is VASTLY overpriced compared with any competitor) where this second product is identical in operation to a competitors product. Oh well. Continue being an evil troll Apple. If I ever buy OSX (which I won't, pirating is better because it doesn't give you money to pursue frivolous and harmful litigation against companies which might provide fairer pricing to the end-users cutting into your "bottom line"), I'll continue to run it on non-Apple sanctioned hardware. Fuck you. And fuck the corrupt judges who found in favor of Apple. Let me guess what they got for Christmas... brand new MacBook Pro laptops donated to everyone in their offices and families? Wouldn't be a shocker.
Well what good are numbers without some meaning to them? 42, it's a number, it's 2*3*7, but other than that, I really don't have a whole lot. What you're describing is just data (numbers) with observational meaning imposed, which is absolutely necessary, and of course I don't think anyone would discount that.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have your own cell plan, some organizations will pay a fixed rate monthly as a subsidy for any individuals who are expected to always be available by phone. Does this qualify as "government provided" if that organization is a one of the government? This might be a really shady if so, personal cell phones with their subscriptions subsidized = signing over privacy? And what if the job requires you to have constant communication either by a phone provided to you or a subsidy on your existing service?
The personal failing of the examiners, no. The collective failure of a chain of people who are supposed to uphold patent law where clearly prior art exists, and yet not one of them could produce one piece of evidence of it? Only a fundamental level of stupidity can be to blame for this. These people shouldn't be examining patent applications. If you can't even comprehend the patent, or the legalese in which it's written, you shouldn't be working there.
And as for an incentive: if they do it right the first time, we won't have to waste the time of the courts paid for by tax dollars with frivolous patent litigation down the road when a patent like this is inevitably used in what can only be described as extortion.
It appears that the declining quality of education in this country has failed to teach you the concept of synonyms. This patent application was filed in 2008, that it took 10 years to be filed with ample demonstration that the technology in question is highly successful and lucrative should be grounds for rejection per se.
it appears that the declining quality of education in this country is reaching all the way to the patent registrars themselves. What a fine example of stupidity and.. dare I say.. incredible ignorance we have here. Honestly, who the hell hasn't heard of Facebook? Where do they find these people?
Alt+F opens the file tab in most applications (including office), it works in 2007, and I don't manually click 'File'. That dropdown appeared and I thought "wtf, *facepalm*" because I knew it would be a question I'd have to answer a million times.
were those who were tasked with writing the software powering these copiers?
Gee, this software may be used in a government office where highly sensitive documents may be scanned. I won't really "delete" any files though, because they might want to recover them, but that's advanced stuff, so I shouldn't inform them that I'm making that copy, it should be a surprise when they call in for support! And in our models where we do allow deleting, we'll just quietly move them to another directory, again for the same purpose.
Perhaps there was some miscommunication when their bosses told them to "shred the files when you're done with them." I can see how that might be somewhat vague in this industry.
Perhaps we just need disclosure on the real cost of manufacture (in terms of carbon emissions) vs that of the offered savings throughout the car's predicted lifetimes. Further, for electric cars, this must also take into account the method by which the electricity being used to power the car was made. I do believe offering a metric such as this for new car buyers (or for prospective congressional imposed limits, which are based in a metric that in fact means very little, and as a result does almost nothing) would better convey how "green" their choice of car might be. And finally we might want to also count in the effects of the materials used (both during manufacturing, lifetime, and post-mortem). Something like this should reflect the total damage the vehicle may do to the environment. I would not at all be surprised if your average small, lightweight car running on gasoline with no extra gimmicks or "special technologies" would be less damaging than the extreme case of over-engineered hybrids and electric cars alike. But this is all but obvious to anyone who has an enlightened view on the so-called "impact of a vehicle."
In summary: the metric of MPG alone is all but useless. But we're not surprised that this is proposed from a congress of idiots most of whom don't even understand how the simplest things around them are made nor work. Perhaps we ought to get some real intellect to represent our people.
It's a fleetwide average. This means they will likely offer vehicles with very high gas mileage to offset their SUVs and sports cars. For instance, add just 2 cars to a 10 car lineup that are purely electric (0 MPG), and you reduce the required MPG of the other 10 by 5.42 on average.
Time to get our forks ready tbqh. What's odd is the latest GA install of community server on mysql.com doesn't work on win7 64bit. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work on 32bit either, though 5.5 and a slightly older 5.1 work fine. Coincidence, or a glimpse of the future?
Like Silverlight?
I'd take what you said a little further and claim that "formal education" has almost nothing to do with a person's ability as a programmer. What you learn in the space of 4 to 8 years, or more, depending on degree (at the upper end of that scale you aren't USUALLY a practicing developer, rather a researcher), pales in comparison with what you would learn writing a few mid level to large applications and even reading open source code. You quickly get faced with problems that aren't logically laid out for you in a path of section to section from a book where the leaps to be made are minimal because the author is doing all of the cognitive work for you, and those first few big ones are tough, you actually have to sit there and try to come up with something original, but you know some theory already, and higher level math helps with the problem solving techniques. Solving those problems, coming up with elegant solutions or efficient algorithms to perform some action, you're learning a lot more than you would in most schools in the US (this isn't true for some of the top schools where their programs are actually reflective of what a CS program SHOULD be, not just cut and dry boring as hell theory that really doesn't teach you much except how to memorize shit).
Further, it's generally not the education that enables people who end up being awesome programmers. Every one of them that I know learned almost everything they know on their own and started early on in life working with computers and was drawn to an interest of writing programs. I learned more personally in 5th grade reading a book on IA-32 assembly than I did in the 2 years of computer science I actually took at one of these god forsaken schools in the US. It's about more than just wanting to get a degree in the subject or making money, it's because we have a passion for it, enjoy it, and it's really fun to do after all. It's solving puzzles, and after all, when you solve a really tough one, you feel good and it can make you money or fame! It's also freedom; you realize you can do anything you want with that little computer in front of you and it's empowering. If you ever want to do something, you CAN, there's no "no, you can't do that" (yes, I am ignoring the law because the law inhibits freedom of expression and thought, and as long as you don't do something EVIL, you should be OK, despite what large corporations with billions of dollars and lots of attorneys and lobbyists at capitol hill getting legislation that protects their empires of wealth may say).
As to why this generally means programmers from India are worse than their US counterparts; it's all about culture. In India, as a culture, that type of personal exploration (yes, laugh at my poor choice of words) and discovery into problem solving isn't held as highly esteemed as it is in the US and some other countries. We pride ourselves on technology and intelligence, not singularly on religion or tradition. So it makes sense that kids become fascinated early on with technology and a portion of those ask the question "why?" and then follow through looking for the answer which leads them inexorably to this field or one of the other closely related ones: math, electrical engineering, physics, etc, as they pertain to technology. With a society so immersed in technology, it's easy to believe that more people will be interested in learning what makes that stuff tick, and further, how they can make their own little toys.
I will say though that I have seen good Indian programmers. It's very rare but I would wager where there's one, there's at least a handful more. But close to 95% of the Indian CS students I see are misguided or just plain terrible at it. It seems like they come here to get a degree then to make money at a low wage, and because programmers are such a huge export from India, finding work with that degree is "easy." I've also seen the actual source code output from some of these offshore Indian firms. Honestly, I was almost floored at the terrible quality.
For being true? And only on /. do idiots like you not get +trolled, aka the proper use of mod points.
MITM'ing a single client is trivial. MITM'ing a single website and all users who connect to it is trivial (though a bit more involved).
MITM'ing every SSL protected site from every single client is a logistics nightmare that's almost impossible, NOT impossible, but completely and totally ridiculous. A government doesn't want to monitor EVERY website, they want to hit those through which the most information flows, and those with a high probability that may be violating their censorship rules but hiding with technology.
This argument started by pointing out that if google went to SSL only in China that it would be flying under the radar, but in fact a MITM against JUST google is more than feasible and possible, and it doesn't matter if you get detected, they aren't trying to hide it, you have NO privacy in China. If a client fails because it has a cached credential, the user will probably hit refresh and cause the client to download a fresh copy from the server (aka the MITM fake copy). SSL can be broken via MITM but in order to do an all-scale, without being detected, you have to have every SSL CA completely ignorant and every owner of a server ignorant. That is, you can't allow for someone running a server or CA to compare one of their legit certs against one brought down by a client. It's not too hard to detect, but even so, this entire argument is moot if China has their hands in the local CAs and if they force all local sites/servers to use local CAs for their SSL, then they have all the private keys and MITM is completely unneeded.
BTW, the only people worried about not being caught doing MITMs are trying to covertly grab data. Trojans may replace every SSL cert with a fake one generated locally and perform a MITM to grab credit card data etc. Again, it's not hard to detect (wireshark would make it really obvious) but the vast majority of users in that situation wouldn't know how to figure out if their SSL is compromised in the first place, let alone if they even have a trojan unless an A/V was telling them. And if detected, the authors try to remain anonymous by hiding behind huge clouds of zombies. In this case, I would argue, anonymity isn't really important when you're trying to censor.
How do you think the client gets the cert? Do you think it just has every cert that exists already loaded on its harddrive?
Yes, SSL is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. The reason certs make it more difficult is because the handshake has been certified by a 3rd party, so in order to truly perform a man-in-the-middle, you need complete control over the connection to both the "secured" server and the CA. If you ACTIVELY control both of those connections, you can force the client to believe that the cert is valid. You don't even have to own the CA, you just need to own the pipes.
This still doesn't work. SSL is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, if you control enough of the flow of information in a country. If you have 100% unfettered control over the network traffic on a single machine, you simply make the browser thing the cert you're seeing is certified by (insert cert authaurity here) but in reality the key they get is one generated by (evil group here), then after traffic is encrypted by the computer in question, it is decrypted at the roadblock then re-encrypted using the proper key to the SSL protected server. The other direction is similar.
Since China owns every route of traffic in/out of their country and has control over it, and any CA's within china, it can most likely see the plaintext of all of that traffic anyway. Hell, if a CA operates in China, they probably are being forced to hand over their private keys to China for packet sniffing. SSL isn't all that secure when someone has complete control over your traffic. Nothing is really, except maybe quantum cryptography (for now).
I'm going to start sending my applications with e-mails of _Is_A_Huge_Fag@X_is_a_shitty_company.domain.com, I wonder how that's going to fly :).
I applied to a job with TokingSlacker@gmail.com. Still waiting for that reply back....
I have something similar set up for tracking and individualizing of e-mails for any kind of application. Postfix + PHP page to edit virtual users = win. And being capable of putting such a setup together should get you points for any IT related application, if they notice it.
I read a few and found this true of all of them. I've read hundreds of mathematical papers and found this false with all of them.
It isn't surprising though, since mathematics is a real science and what's going on here is psuedoscience. CRU data isn't all of it. If someone posted a mathemats or physics paper and claimed this proof was derived using a trick or data that was withheld but we should just "believe them, look at all this wonderful result we end up with", they would be ridiculed and dismissed from the community. But let's brush that requirement aside for the ever-more-intelligent than everyone else climatologists.
We have an assumption of innocence in that area. In science, we have a presumption of incorrectness. Speaking as a math major, what these guys consider "science" is absolutely pathetic. A huge majority of it is assumed without much challenge (or an impossibility to prove it's actually accurate) and then data is withheld from the public regarding a final conclusion. Absolutely appalling. None of it is admissible as science.
Now prove that this is the only data set that is used to make climate change observations. If not, then this is not the data I speak of. This is just some data. I can present to you hundreds of terabytes of data that isn't used to make those observations, it still doesn't mean that what they've done is at all admissible as science.
Ok. Of course they're not just averaging data, that's a completely pointless metric when it comes to weather. But let me ask you this. Why isn't all of that data just dumped into the public then the process by which the selections of which data to use are made public (we dropped station X because Y). You say this is how it works but we honestly really don't know (because we can't, we don't have access to this stuff) if it's only being dropped because it doesn't jive with the presupposed result. And removing data because some of it is determined to be "bad"? But if we define "bad" as anything that makes it difficult for us to show a warming trend...
The simple fact is: who gives a shit why data is removed. The credibility is absolutely 0 until all of it.. ALL OF IT.. bad data included is RELEASED with exactly what analyses were made to determine what data to drop, followed by the processes by which the final results are obtained so that anyone else who follows the same process and agrees with the logic of dropping data (yes, we agree it's bad) will end up with the same verified result. I do guarantee you that there's nothing about meteorology that's so incredibly complicated that people who aren't in an elite select few can't possibly comprehend or understand the results. But when you come out and claim with data of which a percentage has been completely eliminated (and we can't see it) that the earth is warming because of humans (which these studies DO NOT SUPPORT by the way, temperate studies cannot explicitly prove this) that we must turn around and spend trillions of dollars globally, throw incredible taxes on everyone for the sake of "saving the planet," we'd like to see why. If that can't be furnished, no thanks. We'd rather die than risk being bullshitted yet again.
Why would this only apply to software? We see that in digital media if you purchase a copy, you OWN that single copy, though you're not permitted to make another copy (while the original remains in existence) unless it's fair use (personal backups, short clips in an academic media presentation shown to a small group of people, etc). So then I can watch my DVD on *ANY* DVD player I want (well OK there's been some gray area here, sue me). I can listen to that CD I bought on any CD player I want, and I can rip the songs to mp3 format and listen to them on any mp3 device I have. Why is it that software has this plushy magical "oh noes we're so special we must have special rules in the copyright law" belief? As far as copyright goes, it's been found in federal cases that when someone purchases a copy of a copyrighted material, he/she OWNS THAT EXACT COPY and should therefore be able to do with it as he/she pleases insofar as it does not violate copyright law. We've seen that making copies of software is fine as long as it's "fair use" as well (personal copies, backups, installing it on different machines wherein it doesn't violate the licensing agreement -- as in maximum of 1 machine may have it INSTALLED at any time). So then what's with this judge saying that it's unlawful for someone to take a copy of a piece of software that the purchaser OWNS and saying that they have absolutely *NO RIGHT* to copy it onto another machine that they also own, wouldn't this just be another case of fair use? And technically, if somehow Apple has made a case that copying their software is a violation of the rules of this universe (or whatever bullshit they are spouting here), what about the intermediate copies made loading the software into memory for execution? If I put in RAM not cleared by Apple and/or its corporate bed buddies, and that software is loaded onto that RAM, what then? If I connect any device via USB that has a processor that might serve to run any portion of the software AT ALL (such as shared execution or something, granted this is a contrived example), would this violate some kind of law (maybe that I can't append USB devices to a computer with USB ports?) If I attach an external drive to this machine am I not permitted to copy the data over to it (say I'm upgrading or re-installing OSX)? If I attach a second monitor NOT sold by Apple or "approved" in any manner (just a standard DVI or VGA enabled monitor), can't I have the display run to my second monitor? Can't I change the video card for a better one in some models (not sure on this one)?
It sounds to me, if those situations are completely legal, then there's absolutely no way that it can be illegal for someone to copy and run the software on another machine, because the above conditions are identical to doing so. From where is this oddity of law coming? It's inconsistent with the copyright laws we've seen but at the same time claims to be a copyright violation? Software is independent of hardware. Unless their software in some way relies solely on the hardware being sold (ie, it's part of the software product, part A doesn't work without part B and vice versa). Otherwise I see this as a tie-in which have been found to be illegal in a lot of cases: you can only buy this product from us (not just at a discount, literally *ONLY*) IF you also purchase another product from us (where this second product is VASTLY overpriced compared with any competitor) where this second product is identical in operation to a competitors product. Oh well. Continue being an evil troll Apple. If I ever buy OSX (which I won't, pirating is better because it doesn't give you money to pursue frivolous and harmful litigation against companies which might provide fairer pricing to the end-users cutting into your "bottom line"), I'll continue to run it on non-Apple sanctioned hardware. Fuck you. And fuck the corrupt judges who found in favor of Apple. Let me guess what they got for Christmas... brand new MacBook Pro laptops donated to everyone in their offices and families? Wouldn't be a shocker.
Well what good are numbers without some meaning to them? 42, it's a number, it's 2*3*7, but other than that, I really don't have a whole lot. What you're describing is just data (numbers) with observational meaning imposed, which is absolutely necessary, and of course I don't think anyone would discount that.