You don't need more than a few minutes spent on this with an objective mind that knows the basics in statistics to falsify the "thousands of tree rings" study Mann came up with to rectify his earlier (and falsified) hockey stick. It's actually really really easy:
Proxies have lags. They will have peaks and valleys at different times. Averaging them together (which was done) will thus produce a false stability in the averaged curve, with less variations than what was actually true.
If you then graft a modern temperature record onto the end of such a false variationless dataset you will get a valley, or a peak, that looks "unprecedented".
I'm absolutely amazed as to the lack of knowledge in statistics with most of these so-called "climate scientists". By all means, collect the data. Just let someone else handle and interpret it.
(Neither Briffa's "one single tree in Siberia" nor Mann's "our oaks are not temperature proxies" datasets should ever be quoted in climate science)
Re:Why can't we do better? Are you fucking kidding
on
Volcano Futures
·
· Score: 1
Balloons.
Re:Here's some links
on
Volcano Futures
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Gizmodo should really update their article since their source has been forced to recant.
I fail to understand how come I'm supposed to answer for what others have done (at least, according to your claims). Would you like me to use the same lousy argumentation technique on you now?;)
I fail to see why you believe the fantasies in your post above (special treatment, demand of others [who does? what? where?]) are of interest to the rest of us;)
No, sorry, you are indeed making accusations. You're claiming that there's a secret behind-the-scenes elite running the various Pirate Parties. Feel free to support your accusations whenever you want to;)
The rest of us (and yes, I voted for the Pirate Party in the european elections in Sweden) know that the Pirate Party/parties are about openness. If there's something you want to know, feel free to read the various websites and ask questions on the forums.
Comparing (pp) to republicans and democrats, now that's funny;)
However, by using the name "pirate" (pirates in the physical world are dangerous, armed criminals), the parties are alienating a potentially broader public.
Oh there are a lot of people who remember a happy youth, dancing to pirate radio stations since that was the only way to get the good music.
"Pirate" is the perfect name in this historical context and rings pretty well with the intended supporters.
If you redefine God as something that hasn't had anything to do with our universe, at all, since its beginning - then I'd say my argument holds since "God" (your version) and "big bang evolution" haven't both been in effect at the same time.
If you define "God" as something that has had anything to do with our universe since time began, sorry, then all science in the world points to you being wrong (or any version of Popperian falsification process you'd rather use for the argument).
That's why rational beings cannot believe in both "God" and "big bang evolution". I'm well aware than in the US religious fanatics seem to believe otherwise, but that's just one country. The rest of us just keep smiling and shake our heads.
I'm sorry for your delusions, but any one of your anecdotes above would be enough to overturn science as we know it.
The reason that hasn't been done is because your anecdotes aren't what you believe them to be. They're completely natural, nothing out of ordinary medicine/science/diagnosis* has happened and prayer in itself had nothing to do with it.... as controlled tests, including those done with believers, show.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you know at least some statistics, that a stopped clock is right two times a day and that anecdotes, really, mean nothing.
*) you know, sometimes the diagnosis is just wrong. finding that out does not mean God intervened.
I see people who I know well who have had illnesses who are prayed for and are healed of what ails them without any medical intervention
... and controlled tests (you know, science at work) confirms that it's not the prayers that make a difference - but the placebo effect where our bodies are absolutely wonderful little repair machines and quite capable of healing themselves from some illnesses - especially when we believe it will happen.
Still no miracles, still no act of God. If there were, there would at one point in time in this "healing process" happen something (outside influence) that would transcend the laws of physics. If that was true, the person who points that out would get an immideate Nobel Prize and become the most famous person ever in history.
... back to the controlled tests. Laws of physics still apply, and it doesn't matter if the sick believe in God and prayers or if they believe in little green fairies - as long as they believe it's possible for them to get better.
Is that why Sweden, with its state-run curriculum and where almost everyone goes to the state schools, is one of the countries with the largest percentage of people who would respond to you like I will below?
No, its not possible to believe both in "big bang" evolution and God.
It's like believing both in getting the presents your parents bought you with their own money from a store AND Santa Claus.
Furthermore, why is anybody surprised that Americans are less knowledgable?
That one's easy. You've got lots of religious fanatics who rather believe in fairytales (God, ghosts, aliens) than science.
It's somewhat similar, but not completely. At the side of the lever you select 3+ and/or 3-, and when doing so you also engage the cruise control. While it disengages if you push either the brake or neutral pedal, tapping the 3+/3- switch would engage it again (and at the higher/lower setting) - and that's what happened.
To turn cruise control completely off, rendering the 3+/3- switch ineffective, you would need to push a separate switch (also on the lever though, and the same switch in the other direction is "resume")
A few years ago I bought the "safest car in the world" (that's the brand promise) second hand from a dealer. It had one previous owner, and was two years old.
Three weeks after purchase, it suddenly accelerated uncontrollable on the freeway. Pressing the brakes slowed it down, but when I lifted off the brakes again it kept accelerating. Quite unnerving.
I managed to find the cause (not that many things in a car should cause it to accelerate) quite quickly, the 3+/3- km/h cruise control adjustment micro switch had broken (physically) and now sat and "vibrated" towards the 3+ setting several times a second. Turning the cruise control completely off (separate switch) worked fine.
I had the broken part replaced by the dealer, and never said much about it. I wonder what had happened if I had described the case to the press. After all, you could claim the design is defective since a broken switch shouldn't result in such a scenario.... I still drive that same car btw, 10 years later. Nothing's ever broken down since;)
I'm still confused as to whether you've looked into this or not. The answers to what I think you're asking is AES-256 and hash(pw+salt).
Again, if you know something not explained either in text or by studying the code feel free to let everyone else know:) Else I don't really understand what you're after.
(That the above is true can be verified by looking at the JS sent to the client. Whether the salt is random or not might be interesting to look at - was that your point?)
The symmetric cipher uses a master password I select as the key. That key is used locally.
I'm not sure what you're after, but I'm going to assume you haven't looked into it. If so, please do first - else I will be spending time writing what others have already written. If you're already well versed as to how LastPass works and know something I don't I'd be very interested in hearing about it though:)
I've studied the infrastructure and the code as parsed by my web browser. The client does the encryption/decryption. The only thing LastPass gets is an encrypted list of passwords. I.e, they cannot see them in cleartext even if they would want to.
Thus, security is created by their cloud infrastructure and not with lofty promises.
Sorry, I don't want to write a hasty reply but I actually don't get your point:) What I'm discussing and proposing is indeed that the cloud infrastructure should create security instead of cloud clients just having to rely upon vendor information.
It's technically possible, but no one seems to.. care.
Slashdot Mirror
... what if Earth's normal state _is_ to have "slight warming", but interrupted by regular volcanic eruptions cooling it down?*
(The "unprecedented" warming we have now would then be "caused" by unusually few volcanic eruptions lately)
*) Yes, this hypothesis has a lot of empirical support
I'm sorry, what?
You don't need more than a few minutes spent on this with an objective mind that knows the basics in statistics to falsify the "thousands of tree rings" study Mann came up with to rectify his earlier (and falsified) hockey stick. It's actually really really easy:
Proxies have lags. They will have peaks and valleys at different times. Averaging them together (which was done) will thus produce a false stability in the averaged curve, with less variations than what was actually true.
If you then graft a modern temperature record onto the end of such a false variationless dataset you will get a valley, or a peak, that looks "unprecedented".
I'm absolutely amazed as to the lack of knowledge in statistics with most of these so-called "climate scientists". By all means, collect the data. Just let someone else handle and interpret it.
(Neither Briffa's "one single tree in Siberia" nor Mann's "our oaks are not temperature proxies" datasets should ever be quoted in climate science)
Balloons.
Gizmodo should really update their article since their source has been forced to recant.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/
(Do note that the graph still doesn't fully reflect their actual text from yesterday's update)
You're correct, of course. Volcanoes cause cooling, and a lack of eruptions would then "cause" warming for very weird definitions of "cause".
I fail to understand how come I'm supposed to answer for what others have done (at least, according to your claims). Would you like me to use the same lousy argumentation technique on you now? ;)
You must be really frightened by something.
I fail to see why you believe the fantasies in your post above (special treatment, demand of others [who does? what? where?]) are of interest to the rest of us ;)
No, sorry, you are indeed making accusations. You're claiming that there's a secret behind-the-scenes elite running the various Pirate Parties. Feel free to support your accusations whenever you want to ;)
The rest of us (and yes, I voted for the Pirate Party in the european elections in Sweden) know that the Pirate Party/parties are about openness. If there's something you want to know, feel free to read the various websites and ask questions on the forums.
Comparing (pp) to republicans and democrats, now that's funny ;)
Sure.
http://www.pp-international.net/
No.
(Sweden)
The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden
I'm curious as to why you think your fantasies are of interest to the rest of us? :)
However, by using the name "pirate" (pirates in the physical world are dangerous, armed criminals), the parties are alienating a potentially broader public.
Oh there are a lot of people who remember a happy youth, dancing to pirate radio stations since that was the only way to get the good music.
"Pirate" is the perfect name in this historical context and rings pretty well with the intended supporters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio
If you redefine God as something that hasn't had anything to do with our universe, at all, since its beginning - then I'd say my argument holds since "God" (your version) and "big bang evolution" haven't both been in effect at the same time.
If you define "God" as something that has had anything to do with our universe since time began, sorry, then all science in the world points to you being wrong (or any version of Popperian falsification process you'd rather use for the argument).
That's why rational beings cannot believe in both "God" and "big bang evolution". I'm well aware than in the US religious fanatics seem to believe otherwise, but that's just one country. The rest of us just keep smiling and shake our heads.
I'm sorry for your delusions, but any one of your anecdotes above would be enough to overturn science as we know it.
The reason that hasn't been done is because your anecdotes aren't what you believe them to be. They're completely natural, nothing out of ordinary medicine/science/diagnosis* has happened and prayer in itself had nothing to do with it. ... as controlled tests, including those done with believers, show.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you know at least some statistics, that a stopped clock is right two times a day and that anecdotes, really, mean nothing.
*) you know, sometimes the diagnosis is just wrong. finding that out does not mean God intervened.
I see people who I know well who have had illnesses who are prayed for and are healed of what ails them without any medical intervention
Still no miracles, still no act of God. If there were, there would at one point in time in this "healing process" happen something (outside influence) that would transcend the laws of physics. If that was true, the person who points that out would get an immideate Nobel Prize and become the most famous person ever in history.
Is that why Sweden, with its state-run curriculum and where almost everyone goes to the state schools, is one of the countries with the largest percentage of people who would respond to you like I will below?
No, its not possible to believe both in "big bang" evolution and God.
It's like believing both in getting the presents your parents bought you with their own money from a store AND Santa Claus.
Furthermore, why is anybody surprised that Americans are less knowledgable?
That one's easy. You've got lots of religious fanatics who rather believe in fairytales (God, ghosts, aliens) than science.
Volvo S40 T4 1998
It's somewhat similar, but not completely. At the side of the lever you select 3+ and/or 3-, and when doing so you also engage the cruise control. While it disengages if you push either the brake or neutral pedal, tapping the 3+/3- switch would engage it again (and at the higher/lower setting) - and that's what happened.
To turn cruise control completely off, rendering the 3+/3- switch ineffective, you would need to push a separate switch (also on the lever though, and the same switch in the other direction is "resume")
Yes - and the T4 model at that, meaning it really could accelerate as well ;)
Now I'm curious as to why you asked ...
Currently 380 ppm, and climbing, versus 280 ppm for millions of years.
Dude no, not even close.
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2002-051.html
A few years ago I bought the "safest car in the world" (that's the brand promise) second hand from a dealer. It had one previous owner, and was two years old.
Three weeks after purchase, it suddenly accelerated uncontrollable on the freeway. Pressing the brakes slowed it down, but when I lifted off the brakes again it kept accelerating. Quite unnerving.
I managed to find the cause (not that many things in a car should cause it to accelerate) quite quickly, the 3+/3- km/h cruise control adjustment micro switch had broken (physically) and now sat and "vibrated" towards the 3+ setting several times a second. Turning the cruise control completely off (separate switch) worked fine.
I had the broken part replaced by the dealer, and never said much about it. I wonder what had happened if I had described the case to the press. After all, you could claim the design is defective since a broken switch shouldn't result in such a scenario. ... I still drive that same car btw, 10 years later. Nothing's ever broken down since ;)
From the post you replied to:
"That the above is true can be verified by looking at the JS sent to the client"*
I'm unable to understand what you're trying to achieve with your rants, sorry.
*) http://tinisles.blogspot.com/2010/01/should-you-trust-lastpasscom.html
I'm still confused as to whether you've looked into this or not. The answers to what I think you're asking is AES-256 and hash(pw+salt).
Again, if you know something not explained either in text or by studying the code feel free to let everyone else know :) Else I don't really understand what you're after.
https://lastpass.com/support_faqs.php#aes
https://lastpass.com/support_faqs.php#salt
(That the above is true can be verified by looking at the JS sent to the client. Whether the salt is random or not might be interesting to look at - was that your point?)
The symmetric cipher uses a master password I select as the key. That key is used locally.
I'm not sure what you're after, but I'm going to assume you haven't looked into it. If so, please do first - else I will be spending time writing what others have already written. If you're already well versed as to how LastPass works and know something I don't I'd be very interested in hearing about it though :)
http://devilsadvocatesecurity.blogspot.com/2009/04/lastpass-answering-security-questions.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5901550
I've studied the infrastructure and the code as parsed by my web browser. The client does the encryption/decryption. The only thing LastPass gets is an encrypted list of passwords. I.e, they cannot see them in cleartext even if they would want to.
Thus, security is created by their cloud infrastructure and not with lofty promises.
Sorry, I don't want to write a hasty reply but I actually don't get your point :) What I'm discussing and proposing is indeed that the cloud infrastructure should create security instead of cloud clients just having to rely upon vendor information.
It's technically possible, but no one seems to .. care.