I have no issues with software testing as a career. I would definitely prefer it to, say, being a hairdresser.
But to me, making software testing a college major would be like making "Social Networking" a college major. A programming specialty? Sure. Major? I don't think so.
I admit that I misunderstood the claims about Pachauri's statements. But I didn't get it from The Australian, I got it from other sources. I just linked to The Australian because I thought when I googled it that was my original source. However, tracing THEIR sources back, I did end up at the Australian. So mea culpa.
I am in the process of listening to his actual speech at Deakin. I'll be happy to report my findings.
But I would like it understood that other than the (apparently, at the moment) erroneous claim about what Pachauri stated, in the past you have repeatedly displayed a very strong tendency to assume I claim things that in fact I have not. I react to that in ways that I feel are quite appropriate.
I will state again what I have stated so many times before: I don't mind admitting that I am wrong, but first I have to be shown that I am indeed wrong.
"But how do you know that they actually record everything (as you claim they do) rather than analyzing everything, discarding all the uninteresting stuff and only recording a subset of the traffic they've analyzed?"
I didn't claim that. OP did. My only claim was that they get all the signals from at least some exchanges. How much of that they capture and how much they keep is another matter entirely. Your guess is as good as anyone's.
Try reading his goddamned statement and see what he says for yourself. He clearly describes an actual splitter, signal problems that it caused, and equipment to route the signals elsewhere. AND seeing a Narus on an equipment list. But you wouldn't need a huge splitter for the Narus, and you wouldn't need to route the signals elsewhere.
Also, those are only Klein's statements. Not those of the telcos.
I'm not talking about "conspiracies". I'm talking about facts that are in the public record. There is a rather huge fucking difference.
"It's pretty obvious that room contained a Narus DPI. End of story."
No, that's not the "end of story". He mentioned a Narus as one piece of equipment in a large equipment list. He also clearly describes a full-blown splitter, in so many words, and problems that occurred due to signal attentuation because of it. He further mentions the equipment necessary to route the signals from the splitter to some other location.
You wouldn't need a splitter JUST to operate a Narus, and even if you did, you wouldn't need to route the signals to another location to do it. That would be ridiculously massive overkill. I'm not sure even the government is that stupid.
Quote myself: "because it involves amplifiers and lots of other things". I did not feel like going into technical details in a discussion about the law.
Why would you make that assumption? I certainly did not write that.
"In fact, I've repeatedly told you that ~20 years are needed:"
So? What does what you said have to do with what others said? Where is the connection? Did I mention YOU anywhere? I am pretty sure I did not.
"They found it takes 17 years to be sure the signal is greater than the noise."
Who says I ignored it? Perhaps I did, then. I don't recall, off-hand and I don't care enough to go back and look. But even if so, that was then. But NOW, it has been that 17 years. So what are you trying to prove?
"Perhaps your ode to conspiracy theories distracted you..."
"Ode to conspiracy theories"??? All I stated was that conspiracies have actually have occurred in the past. No mention of climate or anything even remotely related to current events. Again, what are you trying to prove here? Are you claiming that there have never been conspiracies? Anywhere? At any time? How ridiculous. Seriously, what was the purpose of this apparent attempt to insult? What are you trying to say? That is, if you are trying to say anything at all that isn't both untrue and insulting.
The context of my comment was whether allegations of conspiracy necessarily had any connection to pseudoscience. Where do you have a problem, in that context, with my statement that conspiracies have actually occurred? In fact, what the hell is wrong with you?
"There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."
This contradicts what Pachauri publicly stated. I very clearly referred to what Pachauri publicly stated. Again, what are you trying to prove with these straw-man arguments? Are you denying he said that? What are you trying to say here? In the context of my own statements, at least, you are rambling somewhat incoherently.
"ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2-25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model's internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate." "
Hahaha! Just what are you trying to prove here? In the context of my own comment, those two (not one) sentences are completely irrelevant. Here, I'll put it back in context for you: [A] Pachauri, head of IPCC, claims there is a 17-year lack of warming. [B] NOAA stated (as they clearly did state, even in the otherwise irrelevant context you provided) that "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
What other claim are you pretending I made? I don't see it anywhere. Did you pluck it out of the air? Did you fantasize it? What I stated was clearly true, as your own quote just proved.
I'm not going to bother to continue. I have to tell you, man: when it comes to playing out the Out of Context Fallacy over things stated on Slashdot, over the last couple of years you have proven yourself to be king. As your own comments here clearly show once again. Congratulations.
The only other thing I will say is that you are proving once again that you have a rather unhealthy and honestly pretty creepy obsession with me. Really? You have kept all those comments I made, so long ago? Who does that and why? Other than creepy stalkers I mean.
"A switch room that contains a deep packet scanner is not the same thing as sending ALL internet traffic to a storage system. More likely it's just a tap."
No, the public record is clear. It's not a "switch room", it's a splitter. And yes, the technical and expense implications of that have been debated and re-debated, re-hashed and triple-warmed-over.
They are splitters. And they send ALL the digital data on fiber that enter those exchanges directly to government. No packet inspection (at those locations, anyway), and no "taps". Just a "Y" in the fibers.
(Yes, I realize that technically it's quite a bit more complicated than that, because it involves amplifiers and lots of other things. This, too, was brought up in the court case. But that's what it is. It's in the public court records. Again: that's why the telcos were given immunity. Where were you when this was all going on?)
"Your link to The Australian confirms that at least 30 years data is required to judge climate trends. This is what every person who is informed about climate has been saying all along."
It confirms only that Pachauri is contradicting what the "warmists" said for years. You're trying to say that they didn't? Ridiculous.
"I don't know who AGW 'advocates" are. The only people I've seen advocating it are a few unthinking right wingers from cold climates."
Okay. "Advocates of Anthropogenic CO2-based Global Warming Theory". There. Fixed it right up for you. But somehow I doubt most other readers will have the same difficulty understanding.
"That aside, what you say is simply the opposite of the truth... and climate scientists who have shown the long term trends..."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Their "long-term trends", in re: AGW, were limited to a period no longer than the recent "slump" in warming. Let's be clear: I am referring to ANTHROPOGENIC warming theory. We know it has been getting warmer. Nobody I know is questioning that. They PREDICTED long-term trends. And they certainly tried to show that it has been a long-term trend. But their models have fallen flat.
You may not remember all the claims that "a few years do not make climate, we need at least 10 years of data..." but I sure do.
Doesn't it bother you that even IPCC admits to a "17-year lack of warming", yet CO2 has continued to steadily rise? It doesn't fit their model, man. And they even admit that they can't explain why.
If their "long term trend" models were accurate, then where did the warming go?
Here's just one example. You can Google it. In 2008, NOAAâ(TM)s State of the Climate report said "15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality."
We've had those 15 years, plus a couple. According to the IPCC itself. The Met Office (you DO know who they are?) projected that there would be no warming until at least 2017, which would make the "slump" 21 years.
Out of the mouths of your own vaunted authorities. Still not satisfied, though? And when el Nino occurs again (a well-known, perfectly natural phenomenon), are you going to say it's CO2?
"'ve heard rumors that AT&T captures all, but never anything that confirms that. "
It most certainly is confirmed. In a court case some years ago, a technician outed that the government had installed a splitter in a special room in one of their exchanges, which fed ALL of their digital data straight to the government. The telcos involved admitted that it was only one of many such. Mass collection, and no warrants involved, anywhere.
In fact, that was the whole reason Congress voted to give telcos immunity, remember? How short our memories can be.
"I haven't see such intellectual dishonesty as yours in quite some time. Though when I did, it was someone of the same politics as you denying global warming. It may even have been you that time, I can't remember."
"Intellectual dishonest", my lily white ass. In the US, we don't call air rifles "firearms", because... they're NOT firearms! I don't know of any other country in the world that claims those are deadly weapons. Hell, a 3" knife is a far deadlier weapon.
It is including those figures in your "gun crime" that is intellectually dishonest.
"Now what's this about a more recent ban? The big gun control legislation was 1997. The 2006 legislation was just a bit of tidying up and closing loopholes. And 2012 was a temporary lifting of certain restrictions to enable the shooting events at the Olympics."
Thank you for confirming that the more recent legislation is relatively insignificant. That was the point I made myself, in an earlier comment.
"So, we're agreed that crime has fallen to a lower level than it was at the time of the banning of most firearms."
What we are NOT agreed on, is your implication that legislation had anything to do with it. The very data that you cited very strongly suggests otherwise (in fact one would be justified in calling it very strong evidence that it did not). It certainly does nothing to prove your point. If anything, it does the opposite.
"For every small increase in average temps caused by global warming, larger extreme temperatures are seen throughout the year. Higher highs and lower lows but an overall average of warmer."
"Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) advocates repeatedly and consistently stated that a trend of 10 years or more proved their point... now they're saying that a slump in warming of 17 years means nothing.
If you want think including fucking BB guns is going to convince somebody, then I repeat what I wrote elsewhere: I'm not the one making an ass out of myself here, fella.
Okay. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept your figures as hard truth for the moment, and amend my statements to conform to your figures:
Gun crime went up. Some kinds of gun crime more than doubled during the 8 or 9 years after the big gun ban. And it did, indeed, stay up for those years.
It did indeed start dropping again, in more recent years. (Are you happy now? Even though I wrote that elsewhere too.) But it started dropping BEFORE the more recent gun ban. So it's not possible to attribute the drop to the legislation.
But the fact remains that did did go up, and stay up, after the '97 ban, for a period that was longer than the recent reduction.
Gun crime was DROPPING from 1993 to 1997, when the largest gun ban went into effect. See page 5 of your own source.
Gun crime then ROSE, to levels almost double what it had been, between then and around 2003-2005. Again see the numbers in that document, or just look at that chart on p. 5 if you don't want to bother with the math.
Gun crime then started to fall again, well BEFORE the latest gun ban.
Your own assertions are disproved by the document you cite.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no issues with software testing as a career. I would definitely prefer it to, say, being a hairdresser.
But to me, making software testing a college major would be like making "Social Networking" a college major. A programming specialty? Sure. Major? I don't think so.
Ah, well, yes, you bring up a good point. Technically, U.S. government is not a Sovereign. The States and The People, however, are.
I admit that I misunderstood the claims about Pachauri's statements. But I didn't get it from The Australian, I got it from other sources. I just linked to The Australian because I thought when I googled it that was my original source. However, tracing THEIR sources back, I did end up at the Australian. So mea culpa.
I am in the process of listening to his actual speech at Deakin. I'll be happy to report my findings.
But I would like it understood that other than the (apparently, at the moment) erroneous claim about what Pachauri stated, in the past you have repeatedly displayed a very strong tendency to assume I claim things that in fact I have not. I react to that in ways that I feel are quite appropriate.
I will state again what I have stated so many times before: I don't mind admitting that I am wrong, but first I have to be shown that I am indeed wrong.
"But how do you know that they actually record everything (as you claim they do) rather than analyzing everything, discarding all the uninteresting stuff and only recording a subset of the traffic they've analyzed?"
I didn't claim that. OP did. My only claim was that they get all the signals from at least some exchanges. How much of that they capture and how much they keep is another matter entirely. Your guess is as good as anyone's.
Try reading his goddamned statement and see what he says for yourself. He clearly describes an actual splitter, signal problems that it caused, and equipment to route the signals elsewhere. AND seeing a Narus on an equipment list. But you wouldn't need a huge splitter for the Narus, and you wouldn't need to route the signals elsewhere.
Also, those are only Klein's statements. Not those of the telcos.
I'm not talking about "conspiracies". I'm talking about facts that are in the public record. There is a rather huge fucking difference.
"It's pretty obvious that room contained a Narus DPI. End of story."
No, that's not the "end of story". He mentioned a Narus as one piece of equipment in a large equipment list. He also clearly describes a full-blown splitter, in so many words, and problems that occurred due to signal attentuation because of it. He further mentions the equipment necessary to route the signals from the splitter to some other location.
You wouldn't need a splitter JUST to operate a Narus, and even if you did, you wouldn't need to route the signals to another location to do it. That would be ridiculously massive overkill. I'm not sure even the government is that stupid.
Quote myself: "because it involves amplifiers and lots of other things". I did not feel like going into technical details in a discussion about the law.
"You might remember this case http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1228088813.shtml"
Haha. Yes. I have it bookmarked under "Other Government Bullshit".
I don't believe sovereign immunity applies to government that violates its own Constitution.
"Presumably you're referring to "scientists.""
Why would you make that assumption? I certainly did not write that.
"In fact, I've repeatedly told you that ~20 years are needed:"
So? What does what you said have to do with what others said? Where is the connection? Did I mention YOU anywhere? I am pretty sure I did not.
"They found it takes 17 years to be sure the signal is greater than the noise."
Who says I ignored it? Perhaps I did, then. I don't recall, off-hand and I don't care enough to go back and look. But even if so, that was then. But NOW, it has been that 17 years. So what are you trying to prove?
"Perhaps your ode to conspiracy theories distracted you..."
"Ode to conspiracy theories"??? All I stated was that conspiracies have actually have occurred in the past. No mention of climate or anything even remotely related to current events. Again, what are you trying to prove here? Are you claiming that there have never been conspiracies? Anywhere? At any time? How ridiculous. Seriously, what was the purpose of this apparent attempt to insult? What are you trying to say? That is, if you are trying to say anything at all that isn't both untrue and insulting.
The context of my comment was whether allegations of conspiracy necessarily had any connection to pseudoscience. Where do you have a problem, in that context, with my statement that conspiracies have actually occurred? In fact, what the hell is wrong with you?
"There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."
This contradicts what Pachauri publicly stated. I very clearly referred to what Pachauri publicly stated. Again, what are you trying to prove with these straw-man arguments? Are you denying he said that? What are you trying to say here? In the context of my own statements, at least, you are rambling somewhat incoherently.
"ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2-25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model's internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate." "
Hahaha! Just what are you trying to prove here? In the context of my own comment, those two (not one) sentences are completely irrelevant. Here, I'll put it back in context for you: [A] Pachauri, head of IPCC, claims there is a 17-year lack of warming. [B] NOAA stated (as they clearly did state, even in the otherwise irrelevant context you provided) that "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
What other claim are you pretending I made? I don't see it anywhere. Did you pluck it out of the air? Did you fantasize it? What I stated was clearly true, as your own quote just proved.
I'm not going to bother to continue. I have to tell you, man: when it comes to playing out the Out of Context Fallacy over things stated on Slashdot, over the last couple of years you have proven yourself to be king. As your own comments here clearly show once again. Congratulations.
The only other thing I will say is that you are proving once again that you have a rather unhealthy and honestly pretty creepy obsession with me. Really? You have kept all those comments I made, so long ago? Who does that and why? Other than creepy stalkers I mean.
"A switch room that contains a deep packet scanner is not the same thing as sending ALL internet traffic to a storage system. More likely it's just a tap."
No, the public record is clear. It's not a "switch room", it's a splitter. And yes, the technical and expense implications of that have been debated and re-debated, re-hashed and triple-warmed-over.
They are splitters. And they send ALL the digital data on fiber that enter those exchanges directly to government. No packet inspection (at those locations, anyway), and no "taps". Just a "Y" in the fibers.
(Yes, I realize that technically it's quite a bit more complicated than that, because it involves amplifiers and lots of other things. This, too, was brought up in the court case. But that's what it is. It's in the public court records. Again: that's why the telcos were given immunity. Where were you when this was all going on?)
"Only if you don't realise that climate is weather averaged over a long tome period, and 17 years isn't long enough."
As I stated in my other reply above, NOAA has publicly disagreed with you.
"Sure they believe in climate change, they deny that people are the cause..."
My only correction would be that "not convinced" does not equal "deny". Although there are certainly deniers, too.
"Your link to The Australian confirms that at least 30 years data is required to judge climate trends. This is what every person who is informed about climate has been saying all along."
It confirms only that Pachauri is contradicting what the "warmists" said for years. You're trying to say that they didn't? Ridiculous.
"I don't know who AGW 'advocates" are. The only people I've seen advocating it are a few unthinking right wingers from cold climates."
Okay. "Advocates of Anthropogenic CO2-based Global Warming Theory". There. Fixed it right up for you. But somehow I doubt most other readers will have the same difficulty understanding.
"That aside, what you say is simply the opposite of the truth... and climate scientists who have shown the long term trends..."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Their "long-term trends", in re: AGW, were limited to a period no longer than the recent "slump" in warming. Let's be clear: I am referring to ANTHROPOGENIC warming theory. We know it has been getting warmer. Nobody I know is questioning that. They PREDICTED long-term trends. And they certainly tried to show that it has been a long-term trend. But their models have fallen flat.
You may not remember all the claims that "a few years do not make climate, we need at least 10 years of data..." but I sure do.
Doesn't it bother you that even IPCC admits to a "17-year lack of warming", yet CO2 has continued to steadily rise? It doesn't fit their model, man. And they even admit that they can't explain why.
If their "long term trend" models were accurate, then where did the warming go?
Here's just one example. You can Google it. In 2008, NOAAâ(TM)s State of the Climate report said "15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality."
We've had those 15 years, plus a couple. According to the IPCC itself. The Met Office (you DO know who they are?) projected that there would be no warming until at least 2017, which would make the "slump" 21 years.
Out of the mouths of your own vaunted authorities. Still not satisfied, though? And when el Nino occurs again (a well-known, perfectly natural phenomenon), are you going to say it's CO2?
Having said that: where is immunity for the Government? It doesn't have any. And this is about as blatantly un-Constitutional as you can get.
I have been wondering for several years where the public uproar over this is. It's a crime against The People... as defined by our own laws.
"'ve heard rumors that AT&T captures all, but never anything that confirms that. "
It most certainly is confirmed. In a court case some years ago, a technician outed that the government had installed a splitter in a special room in one of their exchanges, which fed ALL of their digital data straight to the government. The telcos involved admitted that it was only one of many such. Mass collection, and no warrants involved, anywhere.
In fact, that was the whole reason Congress voted to give telcos immunity, remember? How short our memories can be.
"I haven't see such intellectual dishonesty as yours in quite some time. Though when I did, it was someone of the same politics as you denying global warming. It may even have been you that time, I can't remember."
"Intellectual dishonest", my lily white ass. In the US, we don't call air rifles "firearms", because... they're NOT firearms! I don't know of any other country in the world that claims those are deadly weapons. Hell, a 3" knife is a far deadlier weapon.
It is including those figures in your "gun crime" that is intellectually dishonest.
"Now what's this about a more recent ban? The big gun control legislation was 1997. The 2006 legislation was just a bit of tidying up and closing loopholes. And 2012 was a temporary lifting of certain restrictions to enable the shooting events at the Olympics."
Thank you for confirming that the more recent legislation is relatively insignificant. That was the point I made myself, in an earlier comment.
"So, we're agreed that crime has fallen to a lower level than it was at the time of the banning of most firearms."
What we are NOT agreed on, is your implication that legislation had anything to do with it. The very data that you cited very strongly suggests otherwise (in fact one would be justified in calling it very strong evidence that it did not). It certainly does nothing to prove your point. If anything, it does the opposite.
"One cold year says nothing about the trend in the Earth's climate."
No... but a 17-year failure to warm probably does.
That's from the IPCC itself. (And you should see the draft of their upcoming assessment report! It puts the lie to a lot of former claims about AGW.)
"For every small increase in average temps caused by global warming, larger extreme temperatures are seen throughout the year. Higher highs and lower lows but an overall average of warmer."
That was the argument... 10 years ago.
Things have changed.
"Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) advocates repeatedly and consistently stated that a trend of 10 years or more proved their point... now they're saying that a slump in warming of 17 years means nothing.
That kind of hypocrisy just chaps my ass.
Haha. Way to cherry-pick your figures.
If you want think including fucking BB guns is going to convince somebody, then I repeat what I wrote elsewhere: I'm not the one making an ass out of myself here, fella.
Let's leave the toys out of it, and try shotguns:
1993: 1,592
1994: 1,190
1995: 983
1996: 933
Handguns:
1993: 4,273
1994: 3,087
1995: 3,319
1996: 3,347
Virtually all of your "increase" was BB guns and pellet rifles! We don't even call those guns here.
Okay. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept your figures as hard truth for the moment, and amend my statements to conform to your figures:
Gun crime went up. Some kinds of gun crime more than doubled during the 8 or 9 years after the big gun ban. And it did, indeed, stay up for those years.
It did indeed start dropping again, in more recent years. (Are you happy now? Even though I wrote that elsewhere too.) But it started dropping BEFORE the more recent gun ban. So it's not possible to attribute the drop to the legislation.
But the fact remains that did did go up, and stay up, after the '97 ban, for a period that was longer than the recent reduction.
I did read your stats. They contradict you.
It isn't me who's looking bad here.
"That's not true. The facts are that handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 BECAUSE gun crime was rising."
Haha! I call BULLSHIT.
Read your own statistics. The ones YOU supplied to ME.
Gun crime was DROPPING from 1993 to 1997, when the largest gun ban went into effect. See page 5 of your own source.
Gun crime then ROSE, to levels almost double what it had been, between then and around 2003-2005. Again see the numbers in that document, or just look at that chart on p. 5 if you don't want to bother with the math.
Gun crime then started to fall again, well BEFORE the latest gun ban.
Your own assertions are disproved by the document you cite.
See, there you go being an arrogant asshole again.
The NRA doesn't dictate statistics to the U.S. Department of Justice, nor to the U.S. Bureau of Crime Statistics.
Nor does it dictate statistics from the UK government.
You have not shown that I am wrong in any way. Not even close. Your own stats did not support your position. On the contrary, they supported mine.