However, dressing like a professional doth not a professional make. HP would do well to remember that.
I worked for a software house around 2000. They said they expected "professional" attire, including collared shirts (men & women) and knee-length skirts or dockers and better for pants. No jeans.
Now, that might actually seem reasonable... except for the fact that I sat in a cubical doing my programming and seldom even saw my co-workers, much less anyone else. So who the hell was I supposed to impress? My boss? There were only 5 programmers in the whole place, each to our own space. I seldom even glanced at my boss other than once a week meeting.
Very occasionally a customer came to the office. And I saw one, only once. And I had advance notice.
So when I was alone there in my cubicle, why the hell did anybody care if I even wore anything from the waist down? Or up, for that matter? Since the dividers were 6' high?
Someone give me an answer that is based on reason, rather than tradition. If you can find one.
Seriously, Political Correctness is fine and cute, but when it gets to getting shit done, it's time to stop the silly games and concentrate on what really matters.
PC always had a "you're screwed if you don't toe the line" attitude.
It was never fine and cute. It has always been about social control.
Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All".
Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news.
No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers.
Again, nonsense. NOAA and NASA assume that high and low temperature records were taking at particular times of day. There is no rational basis for making that assumption on a large scale. It might be true in many cases but before there were standards, people at least attempted to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day, and low temperature readings at the coldest.
Again, that's just simple logic, which seems to be beyond your ken.
The rest of this is your same old "bringing up old shit and inappropriately trying to insert it into current conversation", as you did above by inserting statements made weeks ago, entirely out-of-context.
When are YOU going to learn that tactic is utterly dishonest and despicable, not to mention just plain invalid logical argument?
You've argued here with at least several things I've said in the past which had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the current conversation. Not only does that not refute my point, it rather shows you for the asshole you are. That comment is based on my strong opinion of your consistent (and recorded) actions.
Ignorance of the law is not and has never been an excuse.
This is a legal principle that literally goes back to Greek antiquity.
And it today's America, it is also complete bullshit.
When your legal system has so many laws -- many of them not even enforced -- that law enforcement, whose job it is, can't even tell if something is illegal, then it is not reasonable to expect an average citizen to do the same.
And above all else, our laws are supposed to based on the "reasonable man" principle: what would a reasonable person do in those circumstances?
When a reasonable person cannot reasonably be expected to know the law, yet is unreasonably be expected to, and punished if they don't, another reasonable person might well conclude that this is a recipe for madness and anarchy.
It depends entirely on which data you're talking about. There was data that was included and probably should not have been, and data that was excluded and probably should not have been.
But the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. The fact that it was THEN adopted as the "official" record, when it is actually an outlier, reinforces the notion that NOAA just wanted to support their foregone conclusion.
I don't have to be a psychologist to spot a victim of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. He's the one ranting about how he understands reconstructive surgery better than reconstructive surgeons, and understands climate science better than climate scientists, etc.
A mathematician or statistician can spot improper use of statistics no matter what the field. Climate science -- and every other field of science -- uses (or is supposed to use) standard scientific and mathematical methods to prove their point.
No, you do NOT have to be a climate scientist to spot bad methodology. You only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of climate scientists. (1) What is proper, standard scientific methodology? (2) What is proper, standard use of statistical methods on datasets?
If YOU don't understand that, then the Dunning-Kruger table has been rather turned. Have fun.
As for reconstructive surgery: I can GUESS whatever the hell I like, if I label it as such (as I did). If you don't like that, too bad. If you have contrary evidence, present it and show my guess to be wrong. Otherwise your own point works against you.
Actually, that was a different AC. I'm the original one, and I still think your "PR move" thing and the use of "how they operate" has more than a whiff of anti-Chinese bias
1) If you don't identify yourself don't be surprised when you get confused with someone else.
2) You can imagine whatever meaning I intended that you want. Your imagination does not make it so.
3) I owe you nothing. I am "going to have to" do nothing.
I've also never read anything in the field that would justify it, but I'm not a reconstructive surgeon. Neither are you.
Oh? Just what do you know about me, mr. "Anonymous Coward"? Oh, right... we really know who you are, don't we? That's how you can claim to know about me.
I don't have to be a climate scientist to spot data manipulation. I don't have to be a surgeon to see something that deviates widely from other work in the field. No, I am not a surgeon. But I follow the publicly-published work in reconstructive surgery when I get a reasonable chance.
Actually, fuck no; you're an idiot at best, and a misanthrope at worst. Did you perhaps think that maybe a bunch of people with relatively little experience in building fucking craniums did the best they could under the circumstances in order to give this little girl a chance at life extending into adulthood?
You have completely missed the point I was making, and your vehemence and vitriol say the rest. Try actually thinking about what I actually wrote, rather than running off on tangents.
Yes, portions of child skulls HAVE been done in Europe and U.S. Not quit such a large portion, but still. Their "advance" is only incremental, and they did it differently than Western doctors would have.
Do I think their method has inherent flaws? Yes, as I actually pointed out. Which had NOTHING to do with allowance for growth.
I was wondering about the odd shape too... but then i thought, she's pretty young and the implant will have to work when her head and brain grow to adult size too, so perhaps they stuck a balance between an adaptive 3 part structure and projected adult size. It's more important that here cranium is the right shape when she is older, you wouldn't exactly want multiple skull transplants, that would be like the old pacemakers but massively worse.
I agree with what you say, but that wasn't the point.
The seams mimicking cranial sutures are one thing. I have no problem with that. But there is no way that uni-brow has anything to do with normal brain size or shape, or integrating with normal facial features. They did that for reasons of their own.
There have been near-complete upper skull replacements in the U.S. already (rendering this not so much of an accomplishment, merely incremental), but they were generated using PET scans and 3D-printing techniques to mold something a bit more natural-skull-like.
I have no problem with the fact that room must be made to grow. But where did that straight uni-brow come from? I have never read anything in the field that would justify it.
It wasn't "anti-chinese bias" you anti-Jane-biased person!
I happen to know a little about how they operate. Too bad if that doesn't fit your perception, but that doesn't justify willy-nilly insulting people. Get stuffed.
There's also a vast difference between ignorant and being willfully ignorant. There is a full detailed scientific explanation of WHY the change was made. It has nothing to do with "Oh we don't like it".
The fact that it was explained is not evidence that the reasons were valid or sufficient.
They did some very unconventional things in Karl et al., and haven't rationally justified them.
For example: when you homogenize data, you don't normally take data with known small bias and uncertainty, and make adjustments to that in order to match another set of data with known greater uncertainty and known bias problems.
Further, you don't leave out data that is known to be more accurate and cover a greater area, just because it doesn't agree with what you want to show.
In science, nobody does those things. Unless, of course, you are NOAA, and have an axe to grind.
Would those that lobby for these food companies bet their lives on the results of their actions? The board members of these food companies probably already have.
That's a ridiculous assertion. The board members of those companies do not have to eat what "everybody else" eats. It's probably not out of line to guess they eat "organic" and "heirloom" pretty much all the time.
But if you look close, its shape is nothing like a normal cranium.
My guess is that they did it as a last resort + PR move, without really doing the engineering "custom design" work that would have been done in places like, say, the U.S.
You have to admit it's a pretty bizarre-looking skull. Huge monobrow, for example.
By the way, I also wanted to point out that OP's hyphenation is wrong. It wasn't an anti-GMO labeling law. (That would be a labeling law that is anti-GMO.) It was an anti-GMO-labeling law.
It's called the Maunder Minimum for a reason. There is definitely a correlation with sun activity... and my guess is that it's better than the correlation with volcanism. I don't know that for sure, but that's my best recollection.
Yes, because no one should ever work for corporate America. I mean it's not like you're going to be homeless or starving if you don't have a steady paycheck right?
That isn't even remotely like anything I actually said.
You're perfectly free to go work for some monolithic corporation with "HR drones who don't understand anything else", as GP originally said. But you are likely to end up unsatisfied, in a position you don't like, with a bunch of co-workers who were chosen by that same HR department, who therefore don't know how to do their jobs.
Have at it. Those jobs have to be filled by somebody.
Slashdot Mirror
However, dressing like a professional doth not a professional make. HP would do well to remember that.
I worked for a software house around 2000. They said they expected "professional" attire, including collared shirts (men & women) and knee-length skirts or dockers and better for pants. No jeans.
Now, that might actually seem reasonable... except for the fact that I sat in a cubical doing my programming and seldom even saw my co-workers, much less anyone else. So who the hell was I supposed to impress? My boss? There were only 5 programmers in the whole place, each to our own space. I seldom even glanced at my boss other than once a week meeting.
Very occasionally a customer came to the office. And I saw one, only once. And I had advance notice.
So when I was alone there in my cubicle, why the hell did anybody care if I even wore anything from the waist down? Or up, for that matter? Since the dividers were 6' high?
Someone give me an answer that is based on reason, rather than tradition. If you can find one.
Seriously, Political Correctness is fine and cute, but when it gets to getting shit done, it's time to stop the silly games and concentrate on what really matters.
PC always had a "you're screwed if you don't toe the line" attitude.
It was never fine and cute. It has always been about social control.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All".
Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news.
No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers.
Again, nonsense. NOAA and NASA assume that high and low temperature records were taking at particular times of day. There is no rational basis for making that assumption on a large scale. It might be true in many cases but before there were standards, people at least attempted to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day, and low temperature readings at the coldest.
Again, that's just simple logic, which seems to be beyond your ken.
The rest of this is your same old "bringing up old shit and inappropriately trying to insert it into current conversation", as you did above by inserting statements made weeks ago, entirely out-of-context.
When are YOU going to learn that tactic is utterly dishonest and despicable, not to mention just plain invalid logical argument?
You've argued here with at least several things I've said in the past which had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the current conversation. Not only does that not refute my point, it rather shows you for the asshole you are. That comment is based on my strong opinion of your consistent (and recorded) actions.
Please point out an actual "complaint", Bluey. Then maybe we'd know what you're talking about.
Ignorance of the law is not and has never been an excuse.
This is a legal principle that literally goes back to Greek antiquity.
And it today's America, it is also complete bullshit.
When your legal system has so many laws -- many of them not even enforced -- that law enforcement, whose job it is, can't even tell if something is illegal, then it is not reasonable to expect an average citizen to do the same.
And above all else, our laws are supposed to based on the "reasonable man" principle: what would a reasonable person do in those circumstances?
When a reasonable person cannot reasonably be expected to know the law, yet is unreasonably be expected to, and punished if they don't, another reasonable person might well conclude that this is a recipe for madness and anarchy.
It depends entirely on which data you're talking about. There was data that was included and probably should not have been, and data that was excluded and probably should not have been.
But the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. The fact that it was THEN adopted as the "official" record, when it is actually an outlier, reinforces the notion that NOAA just wanted to support their foregone conclusion.
I don't have to be a psychologist to spot a victim of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. He's the one ranting about how he understands reconstructive surgery better than reconstructive surgeons, and understands climate science better than climate scientists, etc.
A mathematician or statistician can spot improper use of statistics no matter what the field. Climate science -- and every other field of science -- uses (or is supposed to use) standard scientific and mathematical methods to prove their point.
No, you do NOT have to be a climate scientist to spot bad methodology. You only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of climate scientists. (1) What is proper, standard scientific methodology? (2) What is proper, standard use of statistical methods on datasets?
If YOU don't understand that, then the Dunning-Kruger table has been rather turned. Have fun.
As for reconstructive surgery: I can GUESS whatever the hell I like, if I label it as such (as I did). If you don't like that, too bad. If you have contrary evidence, present it and show my guess to be wrong. Otherwise your own point works against you.
Yes, you do. If you aren't familiar with a field, you cannot possibly know what a deviation is. You don't know what you don't know.
Hilarious.
Math is math. Methodology is methodology. No matter what field you are in. If you don't understand that... well, you must not be a scientist.
Actually, that was a different AC. I'm the original one, and I still think your "PR move" thing and the use of "how they operate" has more than a whiff of anti-Chinese bias
1) If you don't identify yourself don't be surprised when you get confused with someone else.
2) You can imagine whatever meaning I intended that you want. Your imagination does not make it so.
3) I owe you nothing. I am "going to have to" do nothing.
Is NOAA really doing that, or do you just have an axe to grind about NOAA?
Yes, they really did adjust data as I described.
Yes, they really did leave out more accurate data with wider coverage.
BUT, they were sure to INCLUDE data that was guaranteed to put a warming trend in their dataset.
Coincidence? I think not.
You're complaining about vehemence and vitriol? Seriously?
"Complaining"? No.
There were zero "complaints" in my comment. Do you even know what the word means?
I've also never read anything in the field that would justify it, but I'm not a reconstructive surgeon. Neither are you.
Oh? Just what do you know about me, mr. "Anonymous Coward"? Oh, right... we really know who you are, don't we? That's how you can claim to know about me.
I don't have to be a climate scientist to spot data manipulation. I don't have to be a surgeon to see something that deviates widely from other work in the field. No, I am not a surgeon. But I follow the publicly-published work in reconstructive surgery when I get a reasonable chance.
Do you?
"They" is implicit from the CONTEXT... which I know you just don't seem to understand.
Further, "get stuffed" is NOT an insult, it's a phrase which means "go away".
Really, guy, this was lame. Really, really lame. I can hardly wait to see those others you left.
Actually, fuck no; you're an idiot at best, and a misanthrope at worst. Did you perhaps think that maybe a bunch of people with relatively little experience in building fucking craniums did the best they could under the circumstances in order to give this little girl a chance at life extending into adulthood?
You have completely missed the point I was making, and your vehemence and vitriol say the rest. Try actually thinking about what I actually wrote, rather than running off on tangents.
Yes, portions of child skulls HAVE been done in Europe and U.S. Not quit such a large portion, but still. Their "advance" is only incremental, and they did it differently than Western doctors would have.
Do I think their method has inherent flaws? Yes, as I actually pointed out. Which had NOTHING to do with allowance for growth.
I was wondering about the odd shape too... but then i thought, she's pretty young and the implant will have to work when her head and brain grow to adult size too, so perhaps they stuck a balance between an adaptive 3 part structure and projected adult size. It's more important that here cranium is the right shape when she is older, you wouldn't exactly want multiple skull transplants, that would be like the old pacemakers but massively worse.
I agree with what you say, but that wasn't the point.
The seams mimicking cranial sutures are one thing. I have no problem with that. But there is no way that uni-brow has anything to do with normal brain size or shape, or integrating with normal facial features. They did that for reasons of their own.
There have been near-complete upper skull replacements in the U.S. already (rendering this not so much of an accomplishment, merely incremental), but they were generated using PET scans and 3D-printing techniques to mold something a bit more natural-skull-like.
I have no problem with the fact that room must be made to grow. But where did that straight uni-brow come from? I have never read anything in the field that would justify it.
It wasn't "anti-chinese bias" you anti-Jane-biased person!
I happen to know a little about how they operate. Too bad if that doesn't fit your perception, but that doesn't justify willy-nilly insulting people. Get stuffed.
There's also a vast difference between ignorant and being willfully ignorant. There is a full detailed scientific explanation of WHY the change was made. It has nothing to do with "Oh we don't like it".
The fact that it was explained is not evidence that the reasons were valid or sufficient.
They did some very unconventional things in Karl et al., and haven't rationally justified them.
For example: when you homogenize data, you don't normally take data with known small bias and uncertainty, and make adjustments to that in order to match another set of data with known greater uncertainty and known bias problems.
Further, you don't leave out data that is known to be more accurate and cover a greater area, just because it doesn't agree with what you want to show.
In science, nobody does those things. Unless, of course, you are NOAA, and have an axe to grind.
Would those that lobby for these food companies bet their lives on the results of their actions? The board members of these food companies probably already have.
That's a ridiculous assertion. The board members of those companies do not have to eat what "everybody else" eats. It's probably not out of line to guess they eat "organic" and "heirloom" pretty much all the time.
But if you look close, its shape is nothing like a normal cranium.
My guess is that they did it as a last resort + PR move, without really doing the engineering "custom design" work that would have been done in places like, say, the U.S.
You have to admit it's a pretty bizarre-looking skull. Huge monobrow, for example.
By the way, I also wanted to point out that OP's hyphenation is wrong. It wasn't an anti-GMO labeling law. (That would be a labeling law that is anti-GMO.) It was an anti-GMO-labeling law.
The vast majority was done by selective breeding and grafting
Selective breeding and grafting are NOT what is commonly called "GMO". Nor is it just tinkering with genes.
You're talking apples and oranges here, while everybody else is just talking oranges.
It's called the Maunder Minimum for a reason. There is definitely a correlation with sun activity... and my guess is that it's better than the correlation with volcanism. I don't know that for sure, but that's my best recollection.
Yes, because no one should ever work for corporate America. I mean it's not like you're going to be homeless or starving if you don't have a steady paycheck right?
That isn't even remotely like anything I actually said.
You're perfectly free to go work for some monolithic corporation with "HR drones who don't understand anything else", as GP originally said. But you are likely to end up unsatisfied, in a position you don't like, with a bunch of co-workers who were chosen by that same HR department, who therefore don't know how to do their jobs.
Have at it. Those jobs have to be filled by somebody.
... even a vital tool if you're dealing with HR drones that don't understand anything else.
You're applying for the wrong jobs.
Agreed. Certifications are evidence of a minimum amount of expertise, but that's all.
You can get better evidence by talking to somebody.