But for some topics this just doesn't work, because one side of the argument is basically insane and/or risible. I think that's why the more thoroughly unhinged individuals like creationists (and scientologists, remember those?) seem to stay away these days; no contest.
But the question is: do you count this as one of those topics?
I keep asking: what's wrong with my basic premise: that if your measurements are shown to be off by 100%, there's something wrong with your science?
That was my point. I am waiting for anybody to actually refute it, rather than indulging in name-calling and histrionics.
If you want to discuss Dunning-Kruger, then please explain to me: why is it that you think a 100% error in the basic quantity (temperature) that this whole discussion is about, is not a problem with the existing "science"?
If you did experiments with, and had a theory about, the chemistry of acid-base reactions for example, and had been writing reports about it for 23 years, THEN found out that the molarity of the acid you used was off in your calculations by 100%... would that be a problem with your theory and your science?
It sure as hell would.
So you can take your "Dunning-Kruger" and shove it right up there where your head is.
But I suppose that when every jackass's opinion carries equal weight to actual verifieable independently corroborated facts, you prefer to see it as merely opinion being disagreed with, rather than your trolling anti-science being pointed out.
Ahem. Could you be more wrong if you tried?
Pointing out that a 100% discrepancy in what was being measured is a problem, is kind of the opposite of "anti-science". Sheesh.
Translation of parent's comment: "If it doesn't look favorable to AGW, it must not be science." Apparently with no inkling of the irony and hypocrisy contained in that statement.
You be trolling ma'am. You toss off an overstated, inflammatory reply - that's trolling.
It's only "inflammatory" to those who have an ideological attachment to the theory. Why should a factual statement "inflame" anybody, unless they have an emotional attachment to a particular idea? Facts are facts.
The fact is, if your theory, or the input to your theoretical models, keeps changing by factors of 50%, and 100%, then 50% again, then there is something wrong with your theory.
Hell, man, don't you understand? If global warming since 1997 is 100% higher than estimated earlier, their models HAVE TO be off by quite a good way, yes?
It doesn't matter which direction the change is in... if the discrepancy is that big, something is wrong with your theory. Pretty much by definition.
If the warming projections decrease, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections increase, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections do not change, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
That's how it works for you Jane Q, whether you admit it or not. The fundamental principle is that AGW is wrong, you are right, and your mind finds the "logic" to fit.
Sorry, you're just wrong. You can dislike me or like me as you please, but you should get your fact straight before accusing others of ideological bias.
The fact is (see the links I posted further up this thread), they haven't been right yet. They've pretty consistently decreased their warming projects since AR1 in 1990, and yet they have still consistently projected much more warming than we have actually observed, and ill effects they have previously claimed for it. Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) More and worse energetic, cataclysmic storms. (Nope. We are still in a 30-year slump in total global cyclonic energy.) Hell, even warming. (They admit that they have no explanation why their models, which projected continued if not increased warming, do not explain why it has dropped by more than half (0.12 to 0.05 deg. C / decade) over the last 15 years. Or, for that matter, why their margin of error (-0.05 to +0.15 deg. C) for the last decade and a half is 4 times the size of their actual estimated warming.
Nope... it's pretty damned clear. Something is wrong with their science.
Your keep making these accusations without any references, citations... What exactly makes you so sure the experts are wrong?
Three inaccuracies here. First, I am quite good at providing citations and references. (There's one here.). Second, I did not state the experts were "wrong"... I wrote that there is a strong indication that there was something amiss about their science. Two very different things. Third, I consult "the experts". When it's a question of physics, for example, I look to references from physicists, not climatologists. After all, physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics.
The point I made is very simple: if you have a theory, but the predictions of the theory (OR, as in this case, the basic data upon which the theory is based) keep changing by 50%-100%... then you have a problem with your theory. This is about as basic as concepts in science get.
Example: AR1, 1990: 1 meter rise in oceans expected by 2100.But: "After 23 years, sea-level rise has not increased and is consistent since the last interglacial time period."
Example, AR5: "The computer models predicted widely disparate figures from 140 to 1910 gigatons, making them basically meaningless." That's an error margin of 1300%. Heck... 100% is peanuts in comparison.
Example, AR1 predicted surface temperatures: off by 500% compared to actual observed warming over this period.
It's just not reasonable to keep finding errors of this magnitude, and keep calling it responsible science.
Freenet is it's own thing. It's a P2P system where everything is encrypted, and you provably have no knowledge of what your box is sharing, so it's a somewhat different P2P architecture.
It's also had a decade of serious crypto review.
OneSwarm is also completely encrypted. It uses the BitTorrent protocol, but it's nothing like BitTorrent downloading. Content is distributed, encrypted, throughout the network.
According to the designers at University of Washington, it is not even theoretically possible to tell what network nodes are storing any given piece of data, much less which one(s) are sending it to you.
While OneSwarm hasn't been around for quite a decade yet, it's still got some years under its belt and the creators have a good pedigree.
Double down on stupid.... I swear they are like addicts that refuse to admit they have a problem.
What is interesting here is that they seem to have no problem in their big report reducing warming projections by half -- and now raising total accumulated warming by 100% -- and yet they still call it "science".
Seriously. It would seem to indicate that they have a very serious problem with their science.
Timmeh is paid to miss the point. Did anyone really expect Dice.com employees to speak against this adware?
"Miss the point" is a good way to put it. The point is not (entirely, anyway) that the "sideloads" are deceptive. The point is that people don't want to have to screw with it, deceptive or not.
Speaking of missing the point: Slashdot's new policy of having to wait 5 minutes between posts is causing me to hit the "post" button many times more than I used to. Arguably, that represents more network and server traffic, not less.
And you shouldn't be charged with hacking, just like you aren't charged with grand theft auto if you take an ulocked car that had keys in the ignition.
You might be charged with hacking, but you wouldn't be convicted by an honest court. Federal law (in fact just about the only decent provision of the DMCA) gives safe harbor to those who "offer internet services" but are not themselves involved in the illegal activity in question.
The law doesn't specify that only certain classes are protected, like corporations or ISPs. Everybody enjoys protection under this law. Otherwise, you wouldn't have hotspots in coffee shops. They'd all be too afraid of liability.
Of course, if it weren't for certain other provisions of the DMCA, those explicit protections probably wouldn't be needed anyway...
In any case, this is one of the reasons EFF highly recommends you keep open "guest networks" through your router. It's a public service, and you are not responsible for other people's crimes.
Probably of even more relevance are OneSwarm, and BitTorrent Sync, which both use the BitTorrent protocol and already route data anonymously. (Definitely for OneSwarm, and I am pretty sure BitTorrent Sync does too.)
I could be wrong, but I thought Freenet used a different protocol.
I wrote "copyright" but of course I meant "trademark". Same basic idea though. If I started an organization called "Straight Students of Chicago University", intended for straight students of Chicago University, I don't think there's a whole lot Chicago University could do about it.
Yes, it does, but the things I mentioned have been shown to be majority view by the majority of polls by different organizations: gallup, roper, pew, etc.
"I don't really trust any polls of this type (no matter what the results are) to begin with."
I don't either, unless the results are pretty consistent across different polls by different organizations.
"In cases of war, maybe. Apathy is certainly not helping."
Torrents are the ideal distribution system for open source software, for just one example, and are the preferred method of distribution by many major open source software organizations. Large data files (if public) are also often shared via BitTorrent.
OneSwarm and other systems are set up around "darknets" that use the BitTorrent protocol, and BitTorrent Sync is something I would keep my eye on if I were you.
"most Americans don't like much of what their government is doing"
Polls say that indeed, pretty consistently, most Americans are: against most foreign military intervention, against surveillance by government, against increasing militarization of law enforcement, against drone strikes, against the TSA, against the "War on Drugs" and at least most of the "War on Terror"... in fact, against pretty much EVERYTHING the government has tried to sell us via scare tactics.
Yet the author of TFA claims it's the other way around: that the American people are pushing these policies on Government. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Your assertion that "most seem rather apathetic" is actually more proof that the government is behind it, not "The People": if they're apathetic, then they're not going to be all fired up, urging the government to invade yet another country, are they?
I find this much harder to believe.
Point taken. I'll amend my comment: "Most Americans don't like it, and many are trying to stop it."
Slashdot Mirror
But for some topics this just doesn't work, because one side of the argument is basically insane and/or risible. I think that's why the more thoroughly unhinged individuals like creationists (and scientologists, remember those?) seem to stay away these days; no contest.
But the question is: do you count this as one of those topics?
I keep asking: what's wrong with my basic premise: that if your measurements are shown to be off by 100%, there's something wrong with your science?
That was my point. I am waiting for anybody to actually refute it, rather than indulging in name-calling and histrionics.
Microbot:
If you want to discuss Dunning-Kruger, then please explain to me: why is it that you think a 100% error in the basic quantity (temperature) that this whole discussion is about, is not a problem with the existing "science"?
If you did experiments with, and had a theory about, the chemistry of acid-base reactions for example, and had been writing reports about it for 23 years, THEN found out that the molarity of the acid you used was off in your calculations by 100%... would that be a problem with your theory and your science?
It sure as hell would.
So you can take your "Dunning-Kruger" and shove it right up there where your head is.
But I suppose that when every jackass's opinion carries equal weight to actual verifieable independently corroborated facts, you prefer to see it as merely opinion being disagreed with, rather than your trolling anti-science being pointed out.
Ahem. Could you be more wrong if you tried?
Pointing out that a 100% discrepancy in what was being measured is a problem, is kind of the opposite of "anti-science". Sheesh.
Translation of parent's comment: "If it doesn't look favorable to AGW, it must not be science." Apparently with no inkling of the irony and hypocrisy contained in that statement.
You be trolling ma'am. You toss off an overstated, inflammatory reply - that's trolling.
It's only "inflammatory" to those who have an ideological attachment to the theory. Why should a factual statement "inflame" anybody, unless they have an emotional attachment to a particular idea? Facts are facts.
The fact is, if your theory, or the input to your theoretical models, keeps changing by factors of 50%, and 100%, then 50% again, then there is something wrong with your theory.
Hell, man, don't you understand? If global warming since 1997 is 100% higher than estimated earlier, their models HAVE TO be off by quite a good way, yes?
It doesn't matter which direction the change is in... if the discrepancy is that big, something is wrong with your theory. Pretty much by definition.
If the warming projections decrease, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections increase, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections do not change, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
That's how it works for you Jane Q, whether you admit it or not. The fundamental principle is that AGW is wrong, you are right, and your mind finds the "logic" to fit.
Sorry, you're just wrong. You can dislike me or like me as you please, but you should get your fact straight before accusing others of ideological bias.
The fact is (see the links I posted further up this thread), they haven't been right yet. They've pretty consistently decreased their warming projects since AR1 in 1990, and yet they have still consistently projected much more warming than we have actually observed, and ill effects they have previously claimed for it. Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) More and worse energetic, cataclysmic storms. (Nope. We are still in a 30-year slump in total global cyclonic energy.) Hell, even warming. (They admit that they have no explanation why their models, which projected continued if not increased warming, do not explain why it has dropped by more than half (0.12 to 0.05 deg. C / decade) over the last 15 years. Or, for that matter, why their margin of error (-0.05 to +0.15 deg. C) for the last decade and a half is 4 times the size of their actual estimated warming.
Nope... it's pretty damned clear. Something is wrong with their science.
Your keep making these accusations without any references, citations... What exactly makes you so sure the experts are wrong?
Three inaccuracies here. First, I am quite good at providing citations and references. (There's one here.). Second, I did not state the experts were "wrong"... I wrote that there is a strong indication that there was something amiss about their science. Two very different things. Third, I consult "the experts". When it's a question of physics, for example, I look to references from physicists, not climatologists. After all, physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics.
The point I made is very simple: if you have a theory, but the predictions of the theory (OR, as in this case, the basic data upon which the theory is based) keep changing by 50%-100%... then you have a problem with your theory. This is about as basic as concepts in science get.
Example: AR1, 1990: 1 meter rise in oceans expected by 2100. But: "After 23 years, sea-level rise has not increased and is consistent since the last interglacial time period."
Example, AR5: "The computer models predicted widely disparate figures from 140 to 1910 gigatons, making them basically meaningless." That's an error margin of 1300%. Heck... 100% is peanuts in comparison.
Example, AR1 predicted surface temperatures: off by 500% compared to actual observed warming over this period.
It's just not reasonable to keep finding errors of this magnitude, and keep calling it responsible science.
Hey, fanbois. "Troll" is not an appropriate mod for that comment.
You can disagree all you like. But remember that "troll" is not a substitute for "I disagree".
Not that I think anyone who did that modding really cares.
Freenet is it's own thing. It's a P2P system where everything is encrypted, and you provably have no knowledge of what your box is sharing, so it's a somewhat different P2P architecture.
It's also had a decade of serious crypto review.
OneSwarm is also completely encrypted. It uses the BitTorrent protocol, but it's nothing like BitTorrent downloading. Content is distributed, encrypted, throughout the network.
According to the designers at University of Washington, it is not even theoretically possible to tell what network nodes are storing any given piece of data, much less which one(s) are sending it to you.
While OneSwarm hasn't been around for quite a decade yet, it's still got some years under its belt and the creators have a good pedigree.
Double down on stupid.... I swear they are like addicts that refuse to admit they have a problem.
What is interesting here is that they seem to have no problem in their big report reducing warming projections by half -- and now raising total accumulated warming by 100% -- and yet they still call it "science".
Seriously. It would seem to indicate that they have a very serious problem with their science.
We don't start counting at 0. Our compilers do.
Timmeh is paid to miss the point. Did anyone really expect Dice.com employees to speak against this adware?
"Miss the point" is a good way to put it. The point is not (entirely, anyway) that the "sideloads" are deceptive. The point is that people don't want to have to screw with it, deceptive or not.
Speaking of missing the point: Slashdot's new policy of having to wait 5 minutes between posts is causing me to hit the "post" button many times more than I used to. Arguably, that represents more network and server traffic, not less.
A friend of mine has this to say about "gateway drugs":
So what if 20% of marijuana users go on to use "hard" drugs? They ALL started on milk!
Correlation does not equal causation.
And you shouldn't be charged with hacking, just like you aren't charged with grand theft auto if you take an ulocked car that had keys in the ignition.
You might be charged with hacking, but you wouldn't be convicted by an honest court. Federal law (in fact just about the only decent provision of the DMCA) gives safe harbor to those who "offer internet services" but are not themselves involved in the illegal activity in question.
The law doesn't specify that only certain classes are protected, like corporations or ISPs. Everybody enjoys protection under this law. Otherwise, you wouldn't have hotspots in coffee shops. They'd all be too afraid of liability.
Of course, if it weren't for certain other provisions of the DMCA, those explicit protections probably wouldn't be needed anyway...
In any case, this is one of the reasons EFF highly recommends you keep open "guest networks" through your router. It's a public service, and you are not responsible for other people's crimes.
Not JUST Freenet.
Probably of even more relevance are OneSwarm, and BitTorrent Sync, which both use the BitTorrent protocol and already route data anonymously. (Definitely for OneSwarm, and I am pretty sure BitTorrent Sync does too.)
I could be wrong, but I thought Freenet used a different protocol.
Why let Hollywood decide what modern freedom fighters look like?
Hollywood didn't decide. PEOPLE decided they liked the idea.
Why not use a good idea, even if it came from Hollywood?
Use a Halloween mask for all I care. The idea is the same.
Sure have at it. The thing is though, even our old facial recognition system flags those people as terrorists so....
Doesn't matter. They can't take action on it. And if everybody (or a lot of people anyway) did it, it would matter even less.
Is it time to pull out the Guy Fawkes masks yet?
Hah. Try telling that to the Boy Scouts.
I wrote "copyright" but of course I meant "trademark". Same basic idea though. If I started an organization called "Straight Students of Chicago University", intended for straight students of Chicago University, I don't think there's a whole lot Chicago University could do about it.
but they're not used for that nearly as much as the other use you seem to not appreciate.
It has nothing to do with "what I appreciate". I simply pointed out that it isn't merely "for porn".
Doesn't this fall under some anti-slapp law?
I would think so. "Chicago State University Faculty Blog" is a statement of fact, not a trademark infringement.
Having said that, they may have some logos, etc. they will have to take down.
"Depends on the poll."
Yes, it does, but the things I mentioned have been shown to be majority view by the majority of polls by different organizations: gallup, roper, pew, etc.
"I don't really trust any polls of this type (no matter what the results are) to begin with."
I don't either, unless the results are pretty consistent across different polls by different organizations.
"In cases of war, maybe. Apathy is certainly not helping."
Apparently that one was a WHOOSH.
Yep. Torrents are for porn.
Sorry, just no.
Torrents are the ideal distribution system for open source software, for just one example, and are the preferred method of distribution by many major open source software organizations. Large data files (if public) are also often shared via BitTorrent.
OneSwarm and other systems are set up around "darknets" that use the BitTorrent protocol, and BitTorrent Sync is something I would keep my eye on if I were you.
"most Americans don't like much of what their government is doing"
Polls say that indeed, pretty consistently, most Americans are: against most foreign military intervention, against surveillance by government, against increasing militarization of law enforcement, against drone strikes, against the TSA, against the "War on Drugs" and at least most of the "War on Terror"... in fact, against pretty much EVERYTHING the government has tried to sell us via scare tactics.
Yet the author of TFA claims it's the other way around: that the American people are pushing these policies on Government. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Your assertion that "most seem rather apathetic" is actually more proof that the government is behind it, not "The People": if they're apathetic, then they're not going to be all fired up, urging the government to invade yet another country, are they?
I find this much harder to believe.
Point taken. I'll amend my comment: "Most Americans don't like it, and many are trying to stop it."
another app: grab OsmAnd~ from F-Droid
Hey, thanks for that. I'm checking them out.