"So far it conforms to the cultural expectations."
You mean it conforms to the stereotype promoted by liberals. Not the same thing.
"So when the people who are "conservative" but not "tea party" are included with the people who are "liberal" then that group scores worse than the group that is "tea party"."
No. If you look at his actual comments, you will see that he found no significant difference in Cognitive Reflection Test scores between liberals and conservatives. He DID find a significantly higher score in those who identify with the Tea Party.
So get off your liberal high horse. I have found this smug attitude about IQ on the part of liberals to be [1] not supported by the actual data (see the link above for yet another bit of evidence), [2] unjustified, in my personal experience, and [3] old, tiresome, and offensive.
"This is only surprising if your idea of who supports the Tea Party segment of the Republican Party comes from MSNBC. Hint: most aren't social conservatives."
Perhaps even less surprising when you realize that the Tea Party itself did not identify with Republicans. It is true that they leaned somewhat conservative but there was a significant portion of liberals in their ranks, too.
The (modern) group that originally called itself the Tea Party was as fed up with the Republican Party as it was with the Democratic Party. It wasn't until later that the Republicans usurped their banner.
"Thank you streaming subscriber for subsidizing my torrents. Sorry to sound like a snide dick, but once you got things rolling I decided, why not?
Reply to This Share"
I have to wonder why OP thinks his "heavily discounted" prices are in fact heavily discounted, anyway. The fact that other people may be getting gouged with a backhoe doesn't mean you're not being gouged with a pitchfork.
"How is trying to control the information people receive about your product anything but a logical and necessary outcome of capitalism?"
The answer to that one is easy: trying to control someone's information is a "monopolistic" practice, which means it's not capitalism.
It does not necessarily take a monopoly to engage in "monopolistic" or "anti-competitive" practices. And this is such an example. And before you argue about it being anti-competitive, consider: a CAPITALIST market depends on people making voluntary, informed choices. To the extent that information is "controlled", their consent is not informed and cannot therefore be said to be completely voluntary.
Even Adam Smith recognized that antritrust laws would be necessary to keep a capitalist market free, and prevent anti-competitive practices. You can look at them as meta-rules which keep everybody playing within the rules.
" If you really need efficient number crunching, go with FORTRAN, especially as the OP says that he already has experience with it."
That's true but there are a couple of problems with it. First, to this day, FORTRAN's input-output is still an abomination. And second, modern languages like Python and Ruby can import and work directly with C libraries, but as far as I know Fortran does not play nicely with them.
I agree that efficient number crunching is Fortran's forte. But I suppose it depends on what you are trying to do.
"My thoughts exactly. Isn't 'flow based programming' just a renaming of 'procedural programming'? "
No. It's "black box" design.
This approach came along a long time ago with the advent of integrated circuits. The IC is a "black box". Give it input meeting certain specifications, get output of certain specifications.
The advantage of "black box" design is that you don't need to know what goes on inside the boxes (thus the name). You just put the boxes together in the right combination to get the result you want.
There are disadvantages to black box design:
All the inputs and outputs must be specified exactly, and conform to a standard, or the whole approach falls down. Everything must be precisely documented, and no gray areas allowed.
And you don't learn anything from black boxes. That's all they are: boxes.
"I would hope that Lindzen is on the 'side' of data, and that when/if data shows that his hypothesis is wrong, he will change it. That's what a good scientist would do, anyway."
I hope so, too. But my researches have generally shown that he already IS on the side of the actual data.
Everybody should be. So let's be clear: the same can be said of the IPCC and the climate scientists. Let's hope they steer clear of the political motives and stick to the actual science and data.
"Even previous IPCC members have claimed the latest IPCC report is a joke yet I'll be called names for point that out."
Well, there's little question about which "side" of the debate Lindzen is on, and has been on. But thanks for the article. I have often found his comments to be intelligent and educational.
"Part of the problem is you're treating as a defensible status-quo position: "unprecedented human activity cannot cause unprecedented environmental responses", especially when we have evidence that other unprecedented human activities have caused more local environmental catastrophes."
Absolute nonsense.
All he's saying -- and it's a statement of truth -- is that SO FAR, climate models have not been verified. On the contrary, they have been consistently way off at predicting the future. Quite bad at prediction, actually.
It doesn't matter whether you believe the science is good or not. That the models have not been verified -- have actually, and invariably, been way off -- is a FACT.
So it is actually YOU who are accepting unverified statements from scientists. Not him.
You are trying to reverse it and say he is claiming something he is not. That won't wash. He simply said that the climate models are not verified science. And he is correct.
"In addition, since the argument for lesser privacy is often "we're stopping evil, you're not in favor of evil triumphing ARE YOU?" the rational counter argument gets lost in the emotional one; despite Ben franklin's admonition."
True enough that the rational argument has often gotten lost in emotion. But that should not happen; people are intelligent enough, if they apply themselves even a little, to understand history shows us very clearly that these methods "stop evil" a hell of a lot less than they create evil. Or at least allow for its creation.
"Let's also include all the folks who go to the ER for "free" health care; which is ultimately passed on to insured patients."
Your initial premise is wrong, therefore so is your conclusion.
Generally speaking, indigent patients are covered by State and Federal money... which means tax money. It doesn't come out of insurance premiums at all.
"This is certainly the way of the future, not just for gene sequencing but many other quantitative sciences, although a complete answer would be Python and C++, because numpy/scipy can't do everything and Python is still very slow for number-crunching."
I mostly agree with your conclusion, but for somewhat different reasons. I don't believe Python is "the wave of the future", but rather I'd recommend it because it has been in use by the scientific community for far longer than other similar languages, like Ruby. Therefore, there will be more pre-built libraries for it that a programmer in the sciences can take advantage of.
I also agree that some C should go along with it, for building those portions of the code that need to be high performance. I would choose C over C++ for performance reasons. If you need OO, that's what Python is for. If you need performance, that's what the C is for. C++ would sacrifice performance for features you already have in Python.
If it were entirely up to me, however -- that is to say, if there weren't so much existing code for the taking out there already -- I'd choose Ruby over Python. But that's just a personal preference.
"I do not doubt your numbers at all. I just say that these numbers don't necessarily mean that there is 100% real value behind them."
Well, on that we can agree.
I try to use non-government (or non-interested-party) figures. That is not always possible. But I will sometimes resort to using government numbers when (A) other figures are hard to come by, AND (B) the government's stated position on the issue would be against the actual numbers, which ensures as much as possible that the figures I use are conservative.
"The judge immediately issues "keep this for 2 days" court order."
The problem with this whole scenario is this first step. On what authority does this order to "keep this material" arise? It isn't a warrant. It isn't a subpoena.
See, the error here is that a WARRANT is something used to SEARCH, in order to find illegal material. A warrant means there is probable cause -- but not yet strong evidence -- that something illegal is there. Before a warrant issues, there is no reason to believe there is anything illegal, and therefore no authority for a judge to order you to keep it.
Even court orders have to have SOME rationale behind them. A judge does not have authority to just order what papers you can keep or dispose of, without reason. A warrant is an attempt to find that reason. Before that, there isn't any.
"The court basically gives them a warrant for "WAIT ONE DAMN MINUTE" with zero evidence. after that minute; you can do whatever you want (unless they give you another WAIT ONE MORE DAMN MINUTE court order)."
That is highly illegal. The court has no legal authority to do that. If a judge does it, and you are convicted with that evidence, then you have grounds to appeal, and that judge will end up looking very bad, indeed. Maybe even removed.
And by the way: I won't be replying further here. I repeat that I feel your incessant prodding, and other such conduct, has constituted harassment. I do not intend to indulge you in it. Rather, I intend to contemplate my next steps.
Bluff, bluster, and bullshit. You conveniently omit the very first part of the article, which says:
"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception."
You are distorting the meaning. You might try to claim that a person using a pseudonym is deceiving others, but that is generally not the purpose of posting under a pseudonym.
You, on the other hand, have deliberately posed as Anonymous Coward in order to try to deceive people.
Bluff and bluster all you want. Nitpick all you want. It makes not a whit of difference. I -- and most other internet-savvy people -- already KNOW what a sockpuppet is. We don't need Wikipedia to tell us. It is very clear to any person knowledgeable about social media that I have not been engaging in sockpuppetry, but that you have.
Besides, I have to wonder why you're arguing with me. It certainly isn't me who you might need to convince. And "good luck with that", as they say. If it comes to that, you will probably need it. But I doubt you'll get it.
"To me, the question is at what point does an individual's right to a fair trial or the public's interest trump such an agreement; and how should courts treat private information while still allowing it's use in court proceedings. It's a tough line to draw since you are weighing each set of rights against the other."
Agreed, but I would argue that this has already been weighed and decided, in favor of privacy, in the case of your personal effects. I'm simply saying that I feel the same argument should apply to your personal effects which happen to be in the possession of others. IF, that is, those others had agreed to keep them private.
If you think it's a "threat", you don't know much about the law. It's merely a statement of opinion.
There is a HUGE difference, which you do not seem to understand or appreciate, between having a years-old, well-established, consistent online presence, and a "sockpuppet". The former is socially acceptable and even encouraged behavior, and the other is... well, to understate it a bit, not.
You aren't going to be able to bluster your way out of this. Not that you were any good at that before, either.
Well, a judge can order you to preserve electronic communication almost on a whim - but really, if there's a judge involved here I'd be shocked.
That's true, but I got the impression (wrong or not) that it was not a court order, but simply a "request" by government to preserve records "in anticipation" of a warrant. In a case like that, I'd be tempted to just burn the records even if they did not incriminate anybody. Of course, if it were a genuine court order, I might be obligated to comply, but I'd contest its validity both at the time, and later in court if necessary. As I say, the authority here seems questionable at best.
I am not obligated to preserve personal or business papers on government "request". Period.
As you say, it's different in a civil matter, that again that doesn't apply to this particular case.
And here's another hint: I doubt very much your professional colleagues would be very happy to find out about your conduct. If, that is, you are indeed a professional, and that's not all some other elaborate pretense, like your sock-puppetry here has been.
"Why do you care that I'm Lonny Eachus? Why are you recording this?"
I don't care who you claim to be. The only relevant fact is that by using that name (Which you have brought up here before, remember?), you are confirming beyond reasonable doubt who you are... AND in doing so, have confirmed that you are, indeed, the person who has been harassing me now for at least a couple of years. And that is why I record such things.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions. And here's a hint, although you don't deserve one: you are not as smart as you think you are.
To clarify, just so you don't again get some weird idea that I am somehow "weaseling":
I made two plain assertions: (1) that the timeline of the events related to Benghazi leave some VERY serious questions, including how the State department knew about certain events before they happened, and that we have a right to know what actually transpired. And (2) that Clinton deliberately prevaricated when Congress tried to find out.
If you think I was claiming ANYTHING else, you have reading comprehension issues. Period.
And I am truly done. I am tired of repeating myself, and then having to read more of your distortions of my words.
Slashdot Mirror
"And you complain about stereotypes and bias against the Tea Party?"
Um... excuse me? GP links to a quote from Obama, and you imply that is equivalent to unjustified stereotypes?
WTF? Is there some subtle logic buried in there somewhere? Because I sure as hell don't see any.
"So far it conforms to the cultural expectations."
You mean it conforms to the stereotype promoted by liberals. Not the same thing.
"So when the people who are "conservative" but not "tea party" are included with the people who are "liberal" then that group scores worse than the group that is "tea party"."
No. If you look at his actual comments, you will see that he found no significant difference in Cognitive Reflection Test scores between liberals and conservatives. He DID find a significantly higher score in those who identify with the Tea Party.
So get off your liberal high horse. I have found this smug attitude about IQ on the part of liberals to be [1] not supported by the actual data (see the link above for yet another bit of evidence), [2] unjustified, in my personal experience, and [3] old, tiresome, and offensive.
"This is only surprising if your idea of who supports the Tea Party segment of the Republican Party comes from MSNBC. Hint: most aren't social conservatives."
Perhaps even less surprising when you realize that the Tea Party itself did not identify with Republicans. It is true that they leaned somewhat conservative but there was a significant portion of liberals in their ranks, too.
The (modern) group that originally called itself the Tea Party was as fed up with the Republican Party as it was with the Democratic Party. It wasn't until later that the Republicans usurped their banner.
"Thank you streaming subscriber for subsidizing my torrents. Sorry to sound like a snide dick, but once you got things rolling I decided, why not? Reply to This Share"
I have to wonder why OP thinks his "heavily discounted" prices are in fact heavily discounted, anyway. The fact that other people may be getting gouged with a backhoe doesn't mean you're not being gouged with a pitchfork.
"How is trying to control the information people receive about your product anything but a logical and necessary outcome of capitalism?"
The answer to that one is easy: trying to control someone's information is a "monopolistic" practice, which means it's not capitalism.
It does not necessarily take a monopoly to engage in "monopolistic" or "anti-competitive" practices. And this is such an example. And before you argue about it being anti-competitive, consider: a CAPITALIST market depends on people making voluntary, informed choices. To the extent that information is "controlled", their consent is not informed and cannot therefore be said to be completely voluntary.
Even Adam Smith recognized that antritrust laws would be necessary to keep a capitalist market free, and prevent anti-competitive practices. You can look at them as meta-rules which keep everybody playing within the rules.
" If you really need efficient number crunching, go with FORTRAN, especially as the OP says that he already has experience with it."
That's true but there are a couple of problems with it. First, to this day, FORTRAN's input-output is still an abomination. And second, modern languages like Python and Ruby can import and work directly with C libraries, but as far as I know Fortran does not play nicely with them.
I agree that efficient number crunching is Fortran's forte. But I suppose it depends on what you are trying to do.
"My thoughts exactly. Isn't 'flow based programming' just a renaming of 'procedural programming'? "
No. It's "black box" design.
This approach came along a long time ago with the advent of integrated circuits. The IC is a "black box". Give it input meeting certain specifications, get output of certain specifications.
The advantage of "black box" design is that you don't need to know what goes on inside the boxes (thus the name). You just put the boxes together in the right combination to get the result you want.
There are disadvantages to black box design:
All the inputs and outputs must be specified exactly, and conform to a standard, or the whole approach falls down. Everything must be precisely documented, and no gray areas allowed.
And you don't learn anything from black boxes. That's all they are: boxes.
"I would hope that Lindzen is on the 'side' of data, and that when/if data shows that his hypothesis is wrong, he will change it. That's what a good scientist would do, anyway."
I hope so, too. But my researches have generally shown that he already IS on the side of the actual data.
Everybody should be. So let's be clear: the same can be said of the IPCC and the climate scientists. Let's hope they steer clear of the political motives and stick to the actual science and data.
"Even previous IPCC members have claimed the latest IPCC report is a joke yet I'll be called names for point that out."
Well, there's little question about which "side" of the debate Lindzen is on, and has been on. But thanks for the article. I have often found his comments to be intelligent and educational.
"Part of the problem is you're treating as a defensible status-quo position: "unprecedented human activity cannot cause unprecedented environmental responses", especially when we have evidence that other unprecedented human activities have caused more local environmental catastrophes."
Absolute nonsense.
All he's saying -- and it's a statement of truth -- is that SO FAR, climate models have not been verified. On the contrary, they have been consistently way off at predicting the future. Quite bad at prediction, actually.
It doesn't matter whether you believe the science is good or not. That the models have not been verified -- have actually, and invariably, been way off -- is a FACT.
So it is actually YOU who are accepting unverified statements from scientists. Not him.
You are trying to reverse it and say he is claiming something he is not. That won't wash. He simply said that the climate models are not verified science. And he is correct.
"In addition, since the argument for lesser privacy is often "we're stopping evil, you're not in favor of evil triumphing ARE YOU?" the rational counter argument gets lost in the emotional one; despite Ben franklin's admonition."
True enough that the rational argument has often gotten lost in emotion. But that should not happen; people are intelligent enough, if they apply themselves even a little, to understand history shows us very clearly that these methods "stop evil" a hell of a lot less than they create evil. Or at least allow for its creation.
"Let's also include all the folks who go to the ER for "free" health care; which is ultimately passed on to insured patients."
Your initial premise is wrong, therefore so is your conclusion.
Generally speaking, indigent patients are covered by State and Federal money... which means tax money. It doesn't come out of insurance premiums at all.
"This is certainly the way of the future, not just for gene sequencing but many other quantitative sciences, although a complete answer would be Python and C++, because numpy/scipy can't do everything and Python is still very slow for number-crunching."
I mostly agree with your conclusion, but for somewhat different reasons. I don't believe Python is "the wave of the future", but rather I'd recommend it because it has been in use by the scientific community for far longer than other similar languages, like Ruby. Therefore, there will be more pre-built libraries for it that a programmer in the sciences can take advantage of.
I also agree that some C should go along with it, for building those portions of the code that need to be high performance. I would choose C over C++ for performance reasons. If you need OO, that's what Python is for. If you need performance, that's what the C is for. C++ would sacrifice performance for features you already have in Python.
If it were entirely up to me, however -- that is to say, if there weren't so much existing code for the taking out there already -- I'd choose Ruby over Python. But that's just a personal preference.
"They don't want to ban users. It drives away paying customers."
And THIS doesn't???
"I do not doubt your numbers at all. I just say that these numbers don't necessarily mean that there is 100% real value behind them."
Well, on that we can agree.
I try to use non-government (or non-interested-party) figures. That is not always possible. But I will sometimes resort to using government numbers when (A) other figures are hard to come by, AND (B) the government's stated position on the issue would be against the actual numbers, which ensures as much as possible that the figures I use are conservative.
"In the sense that 'really true' exists as a concept, it is really inevitable that government spending increases."
Sorry, but you'd somehow have to prove that for me to accept your argument.
Government spending HAS gone down at times. But it's doubled under Obama. The former disproves that the latter "has" to happen.
"The judge immediately issues "keep this for 2 days" court order."
The problem with this whole scenario is this first step. On what authority does this order to "keep this material" arise? It isn't a warrant. It isn't a subpoena.
See, the error here is that a WARRANT is something used to SEARCH, in order to find illegal material. A warrant means there is probable cause -- but not yet strong evidence -- that something illegal is there. Before a warrant issues, there is no reason to believe there is anything illegal, and therefore no authority for a judge to order you to keep it.
Even court orders have to have SOME rationale behind them. A judge does not have authority to just order what papers you can keep or dispose of, without reason. A warrant is an attempt to find that reason. Before that, there isn't any.
"The court basically gives them a warrant for "WAIT ONE DAMN MINUTE" with zero evidence. after that minute; you can do whatever you want (unless they give you another WAIT ONE MORE DAMN MINUTE court order)."
That is highly illegal. The court has no legal authority to do that. If a judge does it, and you are convicted with that evidence, then you have grounds to appeal, and that judge will end up looking very bad, indeed. Maybe even removed.
And by the way: I won't be replying further here. I repeat that I feel your incessant prodding, and other such conduct, has constituted harassment. I do not intend to indulge you in it. Rather, I intend to contemplate my next steps.
"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception."
You are distorting the meaning. You might try to claim that a person using a pseudonym is deceiving others, but that is generally not the purpose of posting under a pseudonym.
You, on the other hand, have deliberately posed as Anonymous Coward in order to try to deceive people.
Bluff and bluster all you want. Nitpick all you want. It makes not a whit of difference. I -- and most other internet-savvy people -- already KNOW what a sockpuppet is. We don't need Wikipedia to tell us. It is very clear to any person knowledgeable about social media that I have not been engaging in sockpuppetry, but that you have.
Besides, I have to wonder why you're arguing with me. It certainly isn't me who you might need to convince. And "good luck with that", as they say. If it comes to that, you will probably need it. But I doubt you'll get it.
"To me, the question is at what point does an individual's right to a fair trial or the public's interest trump such an agreement; and how should courts treat private information while still allowing it's use in court proceedings. It's a tough line to draw since you are weighing each set of rights against the other."
Agreed, but I would argue that this has already been weighed and decided, in favor of privacy, in the case of your personal effects. I'm simply saying that I feel the same argument should apply to your personal effects which happen to be in the possession of others. IF, that is, those others had agreed to keep them private.
"Gosh, that sounds like a threat."
If you think it's a "threat", you don't know much about the law. It's merely a statement of opinion.
There is a HUGE difference, which you do not seem to understand or appreciate, between having a years-old, well-established, consistent online presence, and a "sockpuppet". The former is socially acceptable and even encouraged behavior, and the other is... well, to understate it a bit, not.
You aren't going to be able to bluster your way out of this. Not that you were any good at that before, either.
Well, a judge can order you to preserve electronic communication almost on a whim - but really, if there's a judge involved here I'd be shocked.
That's true, but I got the impression (wrong or not) that it was not a court order, but simply a "request" by government to preserve records "in anticipation" of a warrant. In a case like that, I'd be tempted to just burn the records even if they did not incriminate anybody. Of course, if it were a genuine court order, I might be obligated to comply, but I'd contest its validity both at the time, and later in court if necessary. As I say, the authority here seems questionable at best.
I am not obligated to preserve personal or business papers on government "request". Period.
As you say, it's different in a civil matter, that again that doesn't apply to this particular case.
Why are you recording this?
And here's another hint: I doubt very much your professional colleagues would be very happy to find out about your conduct. If, that is, you are indeed a professional, and that's not all some other elaborate pretense, like your sock-puppetry here has been.
"Why do you care that I'm Lonny Eachus? Why are you recording this?"
I don't care who you claim to be. The only relevant fact is that by using that name (Which you have brought up here before, remember?), you are confirming beyond reasonable doubt who you are... AND in doing so, have confirmed that you are, indeed, the person who has been harassing me now for at least a couple of years. And that is why I record such things.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions. And here's a hint, although you don't deserve one: you are not as smart as you think you are.
To clarify, just so you don't again get some weird idea that I am somehow "weaseling":
I made two plain assertions: (1) that the timeline of the events related to Benghazi leave some VERY serious questions, including how the State department knew about certain events before they happened, and that we have a right to know what actually transpired. And (2) that Clinton deliberately prevaricated when Congress tried to find out.
If you think I was claiming ANYTHING else, you have reading comprehension issues. Period.
And I am truly done. I am tired of repeating myself, and then having to read more of your distortions of my words.