I am so tired of this "but they don't measure temperature, they measure radiance" crap.
Of course they measure radiance. But NO instrument "directly" measures temperature. All of them measure some EFFECT that is the result of temperature. Even mercury or alcohol thermometers.
And they all use models, to varying extent. In the case of physical thermometers, that "model" is essentially built into its physical construction. In electronic thermometers, the "model" may be part of its physical construction, or based on a reference, or both. Or might be in firmware. Or it may be in software located somewhere else entirely. Even the surface temperature thermometer record has models to adjust for different factors, including changes of location.
The point is: what you say is pretty much true as far as it goes, but those are NOT strong arguments against the satellite record. Not only are they true of pretty much every kind of instrument, including thermometers, but:
* Radiosonde data has been shown to strongly correlate with UAH and RSS satellite data.
* Radiosonde (thermometer) data was actually used to help calibrate the satellites.
* Satellite instruments (MSU) also have the highest-quality internal references.
* Satellites have by far the best coverage of any instruments we have.
Now, I am quite sure you can find references from The Usual Suspects which disagree with some of these points, but I can dig up references too. And that would just make it pretty much a matter of he-said, she-said, and won't get us anywhere, so I won't likely bother to respond if you do. I've seen them all.
Not many years ago (just before the AGW hysteria began, in fact), the satellites were widely hailed as "the best instruments we have". I am aware that some people (again, The Usual Suspects) disagree. But anyone who ignores the satellite record is doing something wrong.
Not to mention that it is already getting set to be tested in court, since Congress wrote a law years ago stating explicitly that "model aircraft" are exempt from licensing or regulation by the FAA.
Hrm. It would be morally wrong for these tech companies to give in and do it for any country, including their own.
Exactly in the same way it was morally wrong for Google to support censorship in China, in order to "do business there".
For me, the day I saw that in the news, as many years ago as it was, was the day I knew "Do No Evil" was a piece of trash slogan they never intended to follow.
That was the day I stopped using any Google "social" services, and started using other search engines again. Even Bing.
It really doesn't matter. Contrary to OP's claim, there is a lot to complain about.
For starters -- and it might as well be finishers, because it is by itself plenty of reason to complain -- it is yet another example of Federal overreach into jurisdictions the Constitution simply does not allow.
I could argue the matter here for hours, with facts and history going back 200+ years, but I've done all that here before, so I won't do it again. Regardless of whether their regulation is "benign", they don't have lawful authority to make it. And yes, that's a pretty goddamned big thing to complain about.
Ruby's syntax is actually considerably more consistent that Python's.
You may be confused because Ruby has a plethora of alternate ways to do things. But they are not required and the underlying syntax is extremely consistent.
The most inconsistent part of it was added to the language relatively recently. That is the "alternate" hash syntax. The standard syntax for a hash with symbols as keys is
{:key1 => value1,:key2 => value2}
and so on. But the alternate syntax is
{key1: value1, key2: value2}
much like JSON. I seldom use this alternate syntax precisely because while it can be simpler, it is inconsistent. Outside of the hash, you still have to use the standard notation:key1 and:key2for the symbols. So I prefer to put the colon at the beginning of all my symbols and maintain the original consistency.
The "Baloney Detection Kit" stuff is mostly baloney. Even his page about ad hominem is highly debatable.
Example:
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."B: "You're an asshole."
B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.
Utter nonsense. It is quite obvious that B's statement is intended as counter-argument, because it was stated as reply to A's statement. Further, insult has replaced any logical argument, but it's still being used as an argument. So it most certainly is ad-hominem, according to the definition.
If B had said instead: "I'm not going to argue with you because you're an asshole," THEN it would be merely insult and not ad-hominem.
I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but I do think I have a valid point. Which was: "Your Baloney Detection Kit Sucks" is mostly emotional, opinionated hyperbole and itself does not constitute logical argument.
So the rule which the original article thinks would prevent the FAA from regulating actually says that it only applies to model aircraft flown as part of a nationwide community's programming.
No, it doesn't. Try re-reading it.
It says "in accordance with..." the safety guidelines of... That means "following the saftety rules of". It doesn't say it has to be "part of" a nationwide program, only that you have to follow a national hobby group's safety rules.
I wrote that airspace outside regular airways is "often referred to" as Class G airspace. I wasn't being technical. If you want to get technical, Class G is any airspace that is not "controlled" at all by Air Traffic Control.
That does NOT mean FAA has authority to regulate every bit of it. The issue I was raising was that of lawful authority, not of claimed authority. Obviously FAA claims authority. That doesn't mean they lawfully or Constitutionally have authority.
As mentioned elsewhere, EPA claimed authority over all waterways, too. They didn't get away with it.
Just like almost every other manner on which the federal government will claim jurisdiction because the drone was obtained by interstate commerce. You see the drone came into your possession by way of being built in another state or country, therefore the federal government can claim authority.
No. With that excuse they can only regulate the sale, not the use.
Example: the old court case (don't remember the name) by which Feds claimed the right to regulate growing wheat, because it theoretically could affect interstate sale: they could tax it, and they could regulate the sale, but they don't have authority to regulate its use once sold.
But yes, they have definitely been grasping at straws in order to try to regulate just about everything in sight.
As GP pointed out, typical consumer drone flight does not take place in restricted airspace.
In fact, the vast majority of it takes place in what is often referred to as "Class G" airspace, which until now has remained unregulated, for a very good reason: the FAA does not have authority under the Constitution or, for that matter, under the laws that established it as part of the Commerce Department in 1926.
Flying drones as a hobby is not a matter of Interstate Commerce, nor does it (legally) take place in airspace that is under the purview of the FAA. If it does, then the FAA would be right to take action.
But this attempt to regulate formerly unregulated airspace is nothing but a power grab by the FAA, similar to the unsuccessful attempt by the EPA to regulate "all" waterways in the US.
They just don't have authority to do it. The entirety of their authority is derived from the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. If the area or activity does not involve interstate commerce (and private drone flight in Class G areas pretty clearly do not), FAA has no jurisdiction. At best it's a State matter.
To put it another way: other than restricted airspace -- which routes and altitudes are clearly shown on aviation charts -- I own the rights to the air above my property, in precisely the same way I own the rights to the water and minerals underneath it. There are a few minor limitations but this is a long-established area of law.
Hopefully you just didn't read the PSI Slayer link you posted, which repeatedly mentions "Steven Goddard" and his baseless accusations.
Repeat: why are you putting this crap argument with someone else in a reply to me? You seem to be insinuating that I am "SmallCorpses4Sale", but I assure you I am not, and I take your insinuation -- in a completely different public forum, no less -- to be a deliberately malicious act. Among your many others.
This exchange had exactly nothing to do with me. Go the hell away and stay the hell away.
Why are you replying to me? Those weren't my links. You're apparently following an argument between someone calling himself "SmallCorpses4Sale" and another calling himself "Dumb Scientist". The latter here on Slashdot aka "khayman80". Isn't that you? If not, then who are you, and why the hell are you bothering ME on Slashdot over an argument someone else had on Twitter? I do not appreciate this kind of BS.
Why would you include me in this? Your arguments are with others. Are you just stupid, or what?
No, actually it doesn't. What I'm trying to show is that (apart from being delusional) he wasn't very different from "ordinary" Americans in terms of gun ownership and preparations, and not so very different from several other perpetrators of shootings.
I think I know what you're "trying" to show. The point was, you're not showing it.
For one thing, far over 100 MILLION "ordinary" gun owners in the United States do NOT do this kind of thing. So your very starting point is a huge statistical anomaly. From the beginning this person is separated from "ordinary" Americans by a nearly impenetrable statistical wall. Any other similarity is just fluff. Guess what? Mass murderers wear jeans and hoodies too. And some of then drive Toyotas. And BMWs. Big deal.
my argument centers on: (1) placing his shooting taking against a background of "Because I felt like it" shootings by non-islamists and not finding enormously big differences in terms of number of casualties
And so? How does number of casualties correlate with number of intended casualties? Until you can show the latter, the former is nearly meaningless.
(2) pointing out that the scary sounding modified rifles he possessed are in fact relatively ordinary modifications among ordinary gun nuts.
I have no opinion about whether the modifications were "scary sounding" or not. The point about the modifications was that they were ILLEGAL. (And though it is a separate issue: the fact is that they are illegal for no other reason than that they are "scary sounding".)
But the point I want to make here is that your whole idea contradicts itself. If they're ordinary, then they're not "nuts". Nuts aren't ordinary. If you think the average American is a "gun nut", and you live in America, then you're probably living in the wrong country.
Showing that he really wasn't so far out from mainstream America as regards guns owned.
You showed no such thing. The vast maority of "mainstream America" does not own illegally modified guns.
His explosives clearly set him apart though, and place him among the more extreme "preppers".
They place him in the category of Radical Islamic Terrorist. Your attempt to compare him to average Americans did not succeed. Not even close.
Let's get one thing straight: while I make mistakes, like every human (including you), I call it as I see it and I state my opinions honestly.
You, on the other hand, and to the very best of my knowledge, have not done the same. For just one example, you have OFTEN misrepresented my own statements out of context in ways that I believe to be deliberate, premeditated, and malicious.
So don't try to pull this "empathy" crap. I have not done the same to you. Certainly never intentionally, and never to anywhere near the degree and depth you have, even if it were done mistakenly (which I do not for a moment believe).
So if YOU are looking for "empathy" from me, you're probably going to have to wait a long time. I assume you know what empathy means. And I just don't empathize with malicious, bullying, dishonest people.
Slashdot Mirror
I am so tired of this "but they don't measure temperature, they measure radiance" crap.
Of course they measure radiance. But NO instrument "directly" measures temperature. All of them measure some EFFECT that is the result of temperature. Even mercury or alcohol thermometers.
And they all use models, to varying extent. In the case of physical thermometers, that "model" is essentially built into its physical construction. In electronic thermometers, the "model" may be part of its physical construction, or based on a reference, or both. Or might be in firmware. Or it may be in software located somewhere else entirely. Even the surface temperature thermometer record has models to adjust for different factors, including changes of location.
The point is: what you say is pretty much true as far as it goes, but those are NOT strong arguments against the satellite record. Not only are they true of pretty much every kind of instrument, including thermometers, but:
* Radiosonde data has been shown to strongly correlate with UAH and RSS satellite data.
* Radiosonde (thermometer) data was actually used to help calibrate the satellites.
* Satellite instruments (MSU) also have the highest-quality internal references.
* Satellites have by far the best coverage of any instruments we have.
Now, I am quite sure you can find references from The Usual Suspects which disagree with some of these points, but I can dig up references too. And that would just make it pretty much a matter of he-said, she-said, and won't get us anywhere, so I won't likely bother to respond if you do. I've seen them all.
Not many years ago (just before the AGW hysteria began, in fact), the satellites were widely hailed as "the best instruments we have". I am aware that some people (again, The Usual Suspects) disagree. But anyone who ignores the satellite record is doing something wrong.
The general wish of the chinese citizens is that the censored stuff should remain censored.
And how did they arrive at that "opinion", do you think? It's an opinion that is not shared by any Western nation.
Venting serves its purpose, and I do my share to help people, thanks very much. And I don't much care whether you approve of the way I go about it.
I won't try to argue with that. However, I think it is a rare use-case, and one can get around it by merely using the do- block syntax.
I didn't say it was an "exception". I said it is an alternate way to do things. The old, 100% consistent way to do it is still part of the language.
Not to mention that it is already getting set to be tested in court, since Congress wrote a law years ago stating explicitly that "model aircraft" are exempt from licensing or regulation by the FAA.
I admit, though, those weren't novels. But series, yes. Serial pieces of news, and stories. I don't think the "novel" aspect really adds much.
It's a tradition that dates back to Charles Dickens,
Uh... no. It's a tradition that dates back to the first newspapers. That was a hell of a lot earlier than Dickens.
Hrm. It would be morally wrong for these tech companies to give in and do it for any country, including their own.
Exactly in the same way it was morally wrong for Google to support censorship in China, in order to "do business there".
For me, the day I saw that in the news, as many years ago as it was, was the day I knew "Do No Evil" was a piece of trash slogan they never intended to follow.
That was the day I stopped using any Google "social" services, and started using other search engines again. Even Bing.
It really doesn't matter. Contrary to OP's claim, there is a lot to complain about.
For starters -- and it might as well be finishers, because it is by itself plenty of reason to complain -- it is yet another example of Federal overreach into jurisdictions the Constitution simply does not allow.
I could argue the matter here for hours, with facts and history going back 200+ years, but I've done all that here before, so I won't do it again. Regardless of whether their regulation is "benign", they don't have lawful authority to make it. And yes, that's a pretty goddamned big thing to complain about.
Um... probably not.
You may be confused because Ruby has a plethora of alternate ways to do things. But they are not required and the underlying syntax is extremely consistent.
The most inconsistent part of it was added to the language relatively recently. That is the "alternate" hash syntax. The standard syntax for a hash with symbols as keys is
{:key1 => value1, :key2 => value2}
and so on. But the alternate syntax is
{key1: value1, key2: value2}
much like JSON. I seldom use this alternate syntax precisely because while it can be simpler, it is inconsistent. Outside of the hash, you still have to use the standard notation :key1 and :key2for the symbols. So I prefer to put the colon at the beginning of all my symbols and maintain the original consistency.
Example:
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "You're an asshole."
B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.
Utter nonsense. It is quite obvious that B's statement is intended as counter-argument, because it was stated as reply to A's statement. Further, insult has replaced any logical argument, but it's still being used as an argument. So it most certainly is ad-hominem, according to the definition.
If B had said instead: "I'm not going to argue with you because you're an asshole," THEN it would be merely insult and not ad-hominem.
I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but I do think I have a valid point. Which was: "Your Baloney Detection Kit Sucks" is mostly emotional, opinionated hyperbole and itself does not constitute logical argument.
So the rule which the original article thinks would prevent the FAA from regulating actually says that it only applies to model aircraft flown as part of a nationwide community's programming.
No, it doesn't. Try re-reading it.
It says "in accordance with..." the safety guidelines of... That means "following the saftety rules of". It doesn't say it has to be "part of" a nationwide program, only that you have to follow a national hobby group's safety rules.
I wrote that airspace outside regular airways is "often referred to" as Class G airspace. I wasn't being technical. If you want to get technical, Class G is any airspace that is not "controlled" at all by Air Traffic Control.
That does NOT mean FAA has authority to regulate every bit of it. The issue I was raising was that of lawful authority, not of claimed authority. Obviously FAA claims authority. That doesn't mean they lawfully or Constitutionally have authority.
As mentioned elsewhere, EPA claimed authority over all waterways, too. They didn't get away with it.
Just like almost every other manner on which the federal government will claim jurisdiction because the drone was obtained by interstate commerce. You see the drone came into your possession by way of being built in another state or country, therefore the federal government can claim authority.
No. With that excuse they can only regulate the sale, not the use.
Example: the old court case (don't remember the name) by which Feds claimed the right to regulate growing wheat, because it theoretically could affect interstate sale: they could tax it, and they could regulate the sale, but they don't have authority to regulate its use once sold.
But yes, they have definitely been grasping at straws in order to try to regulate just about everything in sight.
"been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory"
He's quite wrong about that. And even if he weren't, "dangerous" or offensive speech is precisely what the First Amendment particularly protects.
As GP pointed out, typical consumer drone flight does not take place in restricted airspace.
In fact, the vast majority of it takes place in what is often referred to as "Class G" airspace, which until now has remained unregulated, for a very good reason: the FAA does not have authority under the Constitution or, for that matter, under the laws that established it as part of the Commerce Department in 1926.
Flying drones as a hobby is not a matter of Interstate Commerce, nor does it (legally) take place in airspace that is under the purview of the FAA. If it does, then the FAA would be right to take action.
But this attempt to regulate formerly unregulated airspace is nothing but a power grab by the FAA, similar to the unsuccessful attempt by the EPA to regulate "all" waterways in the US.
They just don't have authority to do it. The entirety of their authority is derived from the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. If the area or activity does not involve interstate commerce (and private drone flight in Class G areas pretty clearly do not), FAA has no jurisdiction. At best it's a State matter.
To put it another way: other than restricted airspace -- which routes and altitudes are clearly shown on aviation charts -- I own the rights to the air above my property, in precisely the same way I own the rights to the water and minerals underneath it. There are a few minor limitations but this is a long-established area of law.
It was a city court, not "the US justice system".
Hopefully you just didn't read the PSI Slayer link you posted, which repeatedly mentions "Steven Goddard" and his baseless accusations.
Repeat: why are you putting this crap argument with someone else in a reply to me? You seem to be insinuating that I am "SmallCorpses4Sale", but I assure you I am not, and I take your insinuation -- in a completely different public forum, no less -- to be a deliberately malicious act. Among your many others.
This exchange had exactly nothing to do with me. Go the hell away and stay the hell away.
Why are you replying to me? Those weren't my links. You're apparently following an argument between someone calling himself "SmallCorpses4Sale" and another calling himself "Dumb Scientist". The latter here on Slashdot aka "khayman80". Isn't that you? If not, then who are you, and why the hell are you bothering ME on Slashdot over an argument someone else had on Twitter? I do not appreciate this kind of BS.
Why would you include me in this? Your arguments are with others. Are you just stupid, or what?
"Very liberal" was one of the many misspellings in his profile. He meant "very Libertarian".
Oh, you read his mind, did you?
Then why didn't you turn him in, numbnuts?
No, actually it doesn't. What I'm trying to show is that (apart from being delusional) he wasn't very different from "ordinary" Americans in terms of gun ownership and preparations, and not so very different from several other perpetrators of shootings.
I think I know what you're "trying" to show. The point was, you're not showing it.
For one thing, far over 100 MILLION "ordinary" gun owners in the United States do NOT do this kind of thing. So your very starting point is a huge statistical anomaly. From the beginning this person is separated from "ordinary" Americans by a nearly impenetrable statistical wall. Any other similarity is just fluff. Guess what? Mass murderers wear jeans and hoodies too. And some of then drive Toyotas. And BMWs. Big deal.
my argument centers on: (1) placing his shooting taking against a background of "Because I felt like it" shootings by non-islamists and not finding enormously big differences in terms of number of casualties
And so? How does number of casualties correlate with number of intended casualties? Until you can show the latter, the former is nearly meaningless.
(2) pointing out that the scary sounding modified rifles he possessed are in fact relatively ordinary modifications among ordinary gun nuts.
I have no opinion about whether the modifications were "scary sounding" or not. The point about the modifications was that they were ILLEGAL. (And though it is a separate issue: the fact is that they are illegal for no other reason than that they are "scary sounding".)
But the point I want to make here is that your whole idea contradicts itself. If they're ordinary, then they're not "nuts". Nuts aren't ordinary. If you think the average American is a "gun nut", and you live in America, then you're probably living in the wrong country.
Showing that he really wasn't so far out from mainstream America as regards guns owned.
You showed no such thing. The vast maority of "mainstream America" does not own illegally modified guns.
His explosives clearly set him apart though, and place him among the more extreme "preppers".
They place him in the category of Radical Islamic Terrorist. Your attempt to compare him to average Americans did not succeed. Not even close.
Let's get one thing straight: while I make mistakes, like every human (including you), I call it as I see it and I state my opinions honestly.
You, on the other hand, and to the very best of my knowledge, have not done the same. For just one example, you have OFTEN misrepresented my own statements out of context in ways that I believe to be deliberate, premeditated, and malicious.
So don't try to pull this "empathy" crap. I have not done the same to you. Certainly never intentionally, and never to anywhere near the degree and depth you have, even if it were done mistakenly (which I do not for a moment believe).
So if YOU are looking for "empathy" from me, you're probably going to have to wait a long time. I assume you know what empathy means. And I just don't empathize with malicious, bullying, dishonest people.
Have a nice day. Very far away from me.
I have no choice. I'm just defending myself and my colleagues against your vile and baseless accusations.
Empathy???
This is the biggest pile of horseshit fiction I've read in ages. And believe me, I've seen all kinds.