"Which means that deniers have a very clear way to avoid being called deniers: they can present good evidence that they're right."
Did you see the paper in Nature that I linked to elsewhere in this thread? Apparently not. I back up my statements with facts, guy.
"The problem with that path is that the planet has been warming up, largely due to human activity, and there simply isn't good evidence to the contrary."
The problem is that the world hasn't warmed for at least 16 years now, and the "warmists" still can't explain why their models don't say why. This isn't news, man. Even the so-called "climate scientists" have stated that (A) it's true, and (B) they can't explain it.
"Your denialism, like most, is based on what suits your libertarian politics."
Nonsense. Your assertion is based on your own anti-libertarian bias.
But since you want to be an insulting asshole again anyway by suggestion my position on science issues is based on politics, I will simply say that I review the SCIENCE in order to form my opinion, and my politics has exactly zero to do with it. To the best of my ability (which is considerable), I base my opinions (and even my politics) on the facts that I find. Not the other way around.
I have posted many, many links to the SCIENCE behind my position. And you know that, but you deny even the possibility that any of it can possibly be correct... yet you have consistently refused to even try to refute any of it. Typical.
I'm not the one acting like a religious or political nut here. See the Nature paper I linked to. It says precisely what I said it did.
Unlike you, I provide actual reasons for saying the things I do.
"100% compared to what? How well did the scenarios driving those warming projections match the real world forcings? Did you take into account the uncertainty range that came along with the model projections? It would be useful it provided a cite to your recent study."
Projections of 100% greater warming than actually observed over those years, obviously. I'm not playing word games.
The paper was in Nature Climate Change last Septermber. I posted a link further up in this thread. You can read it for yourself.
"Even such notable climate contrarians as the Pielkes, Sr. and Jr, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer will tell you that more CO2 means warming."
And note that you wrote "contrarians" rather than "deniers".
So how is this an argument against my point?
The fact is that they aren't deniers at all. They all, as you say, buy into the CO2-based warming idea, they just disagree about how much of it there is.
They are skeptics, not "deniers".
Calling someone who questions the science behind the warming idea a "denier" is itself a symptom of religious or magical thinking. It would be really great if more people understood that better.
If you were a proponent of the "Young Earth" hypothesis, and I presented evidence that evolution was true, would you call me a "denier"? (Answer: probably.)
If you proposed (and wrote a paper claiming) that Einstein's theory of special relativity was off by 0.0000000000000001%, and I presented evidence that you were wrong, would you call me a denier? Or maybe a fellow scientist? (Answer: probably the latter.)
And if you proposed that the Earth was warmed (or kept warm) by a process whereby gas "trapped radiation", and I presented evidence that this hypothesis was incorrect, would you call me a fellow scientist, or a denier? (Ahah! Based on my readings on Slashdot, I would have to say that the answer has overwhelmingly been the latter.)
And don't try to tell me that there has been no such evidence. There has been plenty. I have posted many links of such here on Slashdot for all to see.
What I was talking about isn't a matter of opinion or personal preference, it is a matter of neurophysiology, which has been well-understood for decades. Putting them upside-down, and detached from the page, means it probably takes 20 or 30 milliseconds longer for your eye and brain to tell which tab is current.
Over the last 10 years or so, I have noticed people who design UIs for software simply throwing away decades of research into how human-computer interfaces work, and what works well. The result has been "flat" UIs and icons that make no sense... all of which are much harder on the brain.
You may prefer these designs. But that doesn't mean they're good interfaces.
As Jefferson said: a law that oversteps the Constitution is null and void, and of no force. It is not a law.
And he was right. Since the Federal government derives its power from the Constitution, any legislation that violates that Constitution is by definition not a real law. Any attempt to enforceme an extra-Constitutional law is also pretty much by definition treason... according to the government's own logic.
I seem to recall Yahoo's CEO saying something along the lines of "If I discuss government surveillance programs, I go to prison as a traitor; if I don't comply with them, I'm also a traitor."
Except that this is using government's definition of "traitor", which means doing whatever it doesn't like. That's not a valid definition.
From the dictionary:
"Treason noun the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. "
The problem here being that our government is the Constitution, and in the United States, it is The People who are defined as sovereign.
So when the Feds violate the Constitution, they are committing treason, because they are violating the law and betraying their sovereign.
Saying that obeying an unconstitutional "law" is treason is the worst possible kind of doublespeak.
In Norway, which have some of the cushiest and most pleasant prisons, they have less than half the recidivism rate of the U.S.
There are other factors involved. But the upshot is: neither punishment or "rehabilitation" work very well. Prison is most effective at keeping people away from society so they don't do more damage, and little else.
However, as mentioned a couple of times above: it may serve as a deterrent for other people. That's harder to measure.
"Perhaps one or more of these sites were running expoitable software, and were hijacked to serve porn without their owners knowledge."
Possibly, but most likely not.
When you automate filters, they make mistakes. Period.
When you put filters in the hands of government, they also make "mistakes", but how many of those mistakes are intentional is anybody's guess... though some of the sites blocked by UK filters have been rather telling.
"At least Ballmer has the decency to sometimes attempt things in-house, Symantec is more like watching the MS acquisition of Danger/Sidekick all the time, at a slightly smaller scale."
When Peter Norton still ran the company, the Norton Utilities were "the shit", as people say. I bought a license for the Symantec version of Norton Utilities + Antivirus, after they bought Peter out. The "subscription" to the Antivirus updates was good for a year. I let it expire. I didn't bother to continue updating the other tools. They just weren't my time.
I used the original character-based Norton Commander as my file manager as long as I was running Windows, up through Vista. I still keep a copy around for XP machines, and I have its successor on my telephone right now. But Symantec bought up Norton Utilities, bloated and gunked it up, and I dropped them right there. I tried to use their antivirus product a couple of times after that but even when most features were turned off, it used up so many system resources I always ended up turning it off anyway.
" They have not been falsified and it's apparent from that statement that you really don't understand much about how climate models work, what they are expected to predict in the first place and that your expectations of them are unrealistic."
Sure they've been falsified, for some thresholds of "falsified".
A recent study was done on 117 of the most common climate models cited by the pushers of CO2-based warming, 114 of those 117 made warming projections that were higher than the actual observed warming over those years. The average amount they were above actual observations was more than 100%.
Now, I don't know about you, but missing the goalpost by 100% on average seems pretty much like "falsified" to me.
In most areas of science, that would be laughed at. I'm still wondering why "climate science" gets a pass.
" When the context is climate the full appellation would be "climate science denier"."
Actually in most cases the proper word would be "skeptic", but the no-global-warming deniers deny that.
And even when they are "deniers", they're actually not denying "climate science" either. Rather, they're saying that CO2-based warming isn't proper climate science in the first place.
"Well, as superficial as it is, I'm glad the new UI is here. I like it when application refine things to make better use of space.
Reply to This Share"
It isn't "superficial" to me. I am very happy that they put the tabs right side up again. Putting them upside-down on top breaks the whole eye-brain-connection thing. (And I don't mean that subjectively, I mean from a human-computer interface standpoint.)
Having said all that, I still think "flat" icons are dumb. Again from a human-computer interface standpoint, they give the eye and brain fewer cues about what means what.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep saying this, even though I repeatedly linked you and others in the past to PHYSICISTS who say otherwise.
You're lying, sir. If others here on Slashdot really want to, they can search through my past comments and see that for themselves.
In the meantime, I don't have to appreciate your maliciousness. Kindly cease your personal attacks. I don't do that to you. Why do you do that to me?
Oops. Right. I forgot: your pretty obviously enormous ego.
"Which means that deniers have a very clear way to avoid being called deniers: they can present good evidence that they're right."
Did you see the paper in Nature that I linked to elsewhere in this thread? Apparently not. I back up my statements with facts, guy.
"The problem with that path is that the planet has been warming up, largely due to human activity, and there simply isn't good evidence to the contrary."
The problem is that the world hasn't warmed for at least 16 years now, and the "warmists" still can't explain why their models don't say why. This isn't news, man. Even the so-called "climate scientists" have stated that (A) it's true, and (B) they can't explain it.
Where have you been the last 5 years?
"Your denialism, like most, is based on what suits your libertarian politics."
Nonsense. Your assertion is based on your own anti-libertarian bias.
But since you want to be an insulting asshole again anyway by suggestion my position on science issues is based on politics, I will simply say that I review the SCIENCE in order to form my opinion, and my politics has exactly zero to do with it. To the best of my ability (which is considerable), I base my opinions (and even my politics) on the facts that I find. Not the other way around.
I have posted many, many links to the SCIENCE behind my position. And you know that, but you deny even the possibility that any of it can possibly be correct... yet you have consistently refused to even try to refute any of it. Typical.
I'm not the one acting like a religious or political nut here. See the Nature paper I linked to. It says precisely what I said it did.
Unlike you, I provide actual reasons for saying the things I do.
"The GP already alluded to that. But that gives you control over the funds in a new wallet, not control over the original wallet."
Yes, that's true. I was referring to the funds, not the wallet.
But my point was, as long as you also have the credentials for the wallet, you can take the actual bitcoins back at any time.
But the issue is real, and precisely why I said long ago that these exchanges were problems waiting to happen.
Wow. Mega-WHOOSH.
"100% compared to what? How well did the scenarios driving those warming projections match the real world forcings? Did you take into account the uncertainty range that came along with the model projections? It would be useful it provided a cite to your recent study."
Projections of 100% greater warming than actually observed over those years, obviously. I'm not playing word games.
The paper was in Nature Climate Change last Septermber. I posted a link further up in this thread. You can read it for yourself.
It appeared in the September, 2013 issue of Nature Climate Change.
Here is a link to the pdf.
"Even such notable climate contrarians as the Pielkes, Sr. and Jr, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer will tell you that more CO2 means warming."
And note that you wrote "contrarians" rather than "deniers".
So how is this an argument against my point?
The fact is that they aren't deniers at all. They all, as you say, buy into the CO2-based warming idea, they just disagree about how much of it there is.
They are skeptics, not "deniers".
Calling someone who questions the science behind the warming idea a "denier" is itself a symptom of religious or magical thinking. It would be really great if more people understood that better.
If you were a proponent of the "Young Earth" hypothesis, and I presented evidence that evolution was true, would you call me a "denier"? (Answer: probably.)
If you proposed (and wrote a paper claiming) that Einstein's theory of special relativity was off by 0.0000000000000001%, and I presented evidence that you were wrong, would you call me a denier? Or maybe a fellow scientist? (Answer: probably the latter.)
And if you proposed that the Earth was warmed (or kept warm) by a process whereby gas "trapped radiation", and I presented evidence that this hypothesis was incorrect, would you call me a fellow scientist, or a denier? (Ahah! Based on my readings on Slashdot, I would have to say that the answer has overwhelmingly been the latter.)
And don't try to tell me that there has been no such evidence. There has been plenty. I have posted many links of such here on Slashdot for all to see.
What I was talking about isn't a matter of opinion or personal preference, it is a matter of neurophysiology, which has been well-understood for decades. Putting them upside-down, and detached from the page, means it probably takes 20 or 30 milliseconds longer for your eye and brain to tell which tab is current.
Over the last 10 years or so, I have noticed people who design UIs for software simply throwing away decades of research into how human-computer interfaces work, and what works well. The result has been "flat" UIs and icons that make no sense... all of which are much harder on the brain.
You may prefer these designs. But that doesn't mean they're good interfaces.
"And look at you, buying into the government's blame-shifting."
Huh? Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from anything I wrote.
I definitely DO blame them. They know better. They've just pretended not to. That was part of my point.
No, Constitutionally, it is not law.
As Jefferson said: a law that oversteps the Constitution is null and void, and of no force. It is not a law.
And he was right. Since the Federal government derives its power from the Constitution, any legislation that violates that Constitution is by definition not a real law. Any attempt to enforceme an extra-Constitutional law is also pretty much by definition treason... according to the government's own logic.
I seem to recall Yahoo's CEO saying something along the lines of "If I discuss government surveillance programs, I go to prison as a traitor; if I don't comply with them, I'm also a traitor."
Except that this is using government's definition of "traitor", which means doing whatever it doesn't like. That's not a valid definition.
From the dictionary:
"Treason noun the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. "
The problem here being that our government is the Constitution, and in the United States, it is The People who are defined as sovereign.
So when the Feds violate the Constitution, they are committing treason, because they are violating the law and betraying their sovereign.
Saying that obeying an unconstitutional "law" is treason is the worst possible kind of doublespeak.
In Norway, which have some of the cushiest and most pleasant prisons, they have less than half the recidivism rate of the U.S.
There are other factors involved. But the upshot is: neither punishment or "rehabilitation" work very well. Prison is most effective at keeping people away from society so they don't do more damage, and little else.
However, as mentioned a couple of times above: it may serve as a deterrent for other people. That's harder to measure.
"I can also airily wave my hand and claim evidence."
I don't need to "wave my hand", jerk. I can spend two fucking minutes on google and look up some actual research.
Maybe you should do the same. That's just one example out of maybe 100 good ones that came up after I spent 10 seconds to type in a search phrase.
"Perhaps one or more of these sites were running expoitable software, and were hijacked to serve porn without their owners knowledge."
Possibly, but most likely not.
When you automate filters, they make mistakes. Period.
When you put filters in the hands of government, they also make "mistakes", but how many of those mistakes are intentional is anybody's guess... though some of the sites blocked by UK filters have been rather telling.
"If you give someone control of your wallet, so that they know your keys, you can never get back that control."
Yes you can. Create a new wallet and pay those bitcoins into the new wallet. Done.
Just kidding. Don't think it came off though. NM
You forgot one. it's = something belonging to it
"At least Ballmer has the decency to sometimes attempt things in-house, Symantec is more like watching the MS acquisition of Danger/Sidekick all the time, at a slightly smaller scale."
When Peter Norton still ran the company, the Norton Utilities were "the shit", as people say. I bought a license for the Symantec version of Norton Utilities + Antivirus, after they bought Peter out. The "subscription" to the Antivirus updates was good for a year. I let it expire. I didn't bother to continue updating the other tools. They just weren't my time.
I used the original character-based Norton Commander as my file manager as long as I was running Windows, up through Vista. I still keep a copy around for XP machines, and I have its successor on my telephone right now. But Symantec bought up Norton Utilities, bloated and gunked it up, and I dropped them right there. I tried to use their antivirus product a couple of times after that but even when most features were turned off, it used up so many system resources I always ended up turning it off anyway.
" They have not been falsified and it's apparent from that statement that you really don't understand much about how climate models work, what they are expected to predict in the first place and that your expectations of them are unrealistic."
Sure they've been falsified, for some thresholds of "falsified".
A recent study was done on 117 of the most common climate models cited by the pushers of CO2-based warming, 114 of those 117 made warming projections that were higher than the actual observed warming over those years. The average amount they were above actual observations was more than 100%.
Now, I don't know about you, but missing the goalpost by 100% on average seems pretty much like "falsified" to me.
In most areas of science, that would be laughed at. I'm still wondering why "climate science" gets a pass.
" When the context is climate the full appellation would be "climate science denier"."
Actually in most cases the proper word would be "skeptic", but the no-global-warming deniers deny that.
And even when they are "deniers", they're actually not denying "climate science" either. Rather, they're saying that CO2-based warming isn't proper climate science in the first place.
"Clearly he weighs the same as a duck!"
Or a very small rock.
"Well, as superficial as it is, I'm glad the new UI is here. I like it when application refine things to make better use of space. Reply to This Share"
It isn't "superficial" to me. I am very happy that they put the tabs right side up again. Putting them upside-down on top breaks the whole eye-brain-connection thing. (And I don't mean that subjectively, I mean from a human-computer interface standpoint.)
Having said all that, I still think "flat" icons are dumb. Again from a human-computer interface standpoint, they give the eye and brain fewer cues about what means what.
"This is because the punishment is not severe enough to discourage him from pursuing his career."
No, it isn't. We have a century of solid research, evidence and data to say so. Punishment just isn't a very good deterrent.
I didn't say it's NOT a deterrent. And I didn't say we shouldn't punish. But it's not a very good deterrent of re-offense. We know this.
On the other hand, as somebody pointed out above: it might be a good deterrent against someone else committing the same crime. So there's that.
"That's not the full story; there's also a very important component of deterring other people from doing the same thing."
I think that's a valid point.