Look you misused a word with a specific technical meaning. Your misuse was obvious to anyone who knows the actual meaning of the term you used. I pointed it out and you don't want to accept it. You appear unable to simply gracefully accept your mistake and instead insulted me while also again misusing a technical term. I replied with an illustration of why your usage was incorrect and your response is to insult me again.
As I've said before, adults with a good argument don't need to stoop to ad hominems. Looking at the other posts you have made in the threads of this particular article and in "Followup: Anti-Global Warming Story Itself Flawed" it appears they are mostly insults, sarcasm and unsupported assertions. It is unfortunate that is all you seem to choose to offer.
Using technical terms incorrectly in order to try to imbue one's words with an authenticity and/or authority that they do not merit is, at best, unfortunate. Did context "make it clear" what you "really meant"? Who knows without polling a representative sample of the audience? But, even if it did, it still doesn't change the fact that you were misusing the term. It is unfortunate that you appear to be so unwilling or unable to accept even such a mild correction as the one I made.
I suppose I could keep posting directly analogous examples to further illustrate why your use of the terms was incorrect (and to be blunt: flat out wrong) but that seems pointless as you are making it clear you will not accept this.
In my experience if someone cannot accept having made even minor obvious mistakes it is generally fruitless to try to engage them on larger issues. I think I am far from alone in holding that generalism to be true. I don't know what your goal is but if it is something like convincing people of your position or getting people to try to enter into honest debate with you then you might want to reconsider your approach. But I'm not a mind reader and perhaps you have some other goal and your approach is appropriate to that goal.
'
That is a flawed analogy. The lotto drawings are supposed to be random - the post I responded to implied that the spikes were regular, "every 100,000 years or so". All sorts of things happened around each of the spikes - maybe there was a big increase in bunny population around one - that doesn't mean you get to say "oh this spike was caused by the big bunny populations".
Let me say it again, all sorts of things happened around the spikes, you can't select out something that happened around one of the spikes and say that just because it happened near that spike that it was the cause of that spike. The fact that there were other spikes without that event being near them argues against that event being the cause of the spike.
As the saying goes - correlation is not causation and even if that were not true what would you calculate as the correlation coefficient given the 4 cases the post talked about?
Spike= Yes, IR = Yes (IR==Industrial Revolution)
Spike = Yes, IR=No
Spike = Yes, IR=No
Spike = Yes, IR = No
Please note that nothing I am saying in any ways implies a personal disbelief/belief in the existence of global warming or in any particular contribution, or lack thereof, to global warming by humankind. It is simply that the type of argument being put forward in that post does not make any sense regardless of what it is applied to.
No, an algorithm is a very specific method. Finite Element methods are a whole class of algorithms. Having taken graduate numerical analysis I can tell you that if I had told one of my profs that "Finite Element Methods" was an algorithm they would have just laughed. It's like saying the field of baking (Finite Element methods) and a recipe for cookies (an algorithm) are the same thing.
And as for your insult - in my experience adults who have facts to support their arguments don't need to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Note: the press release about the study is somewhat less over the top.
It is hard to see how the the summary is more "over the top" when it is a quote from the "less over the top" press release. In fact the quoted section seems to be quite middle of the road. People should read the Press Release itself.
How is this relevant? In the example there are 4 spikes - occurring on a cyclical basis - and one> of them is near the industrial revolution. If someone wants to then infer that the cause of the 4th spike was the industrial revolution, just because of the proximity of the two events, that is a pretty huge leap... The other three spikes were then caused by something else that was no longer present but by a huge coincidence right on cue the industrial revolution "saved the day" by producing the 4th cycle more or less on time?
The algothim that brings them together is called finite element analysis
Finite Element Analysis is not an algorithm, it is a general method. Calling it an algorithm is no more accurate than calling, for example, Numerical Analysis an algorithm. Calling it an algorithm may impart meaning or shadings to a discussion that should not be there.
Sure, all the parties lie and hide things that they have done. But can you name instances where the other parties are suppressing things that independent 3rd parties, like scientists, have done?
Well first let me point out what has already been said elsewhere - the government isn't suppressing the scientists work - it has been published in reputable journals. The government does want control over what PR activities its employees engage in - seems perfectly normal to me, in no way suppresses the scientific findings from being reported and media control is something engaged in by all governments.
Second, you ask for examples of other parties suppressing the work of 3rd parties - but a) the work isn't being supressed, but even if it was... b) these aren't third parties they are employees of the government; a third party would be a university scientist, a news person being censored etc. c) all governments suppress information, reports about their own workings that are generated by their own employees d) You admit to the dishonesty of the other parties - who cares what the particular form is? If they are dishonest then they are dishonest; IMHO saying that one type is worse than the other is just making convenient definitions to push a political agenda.
Everyone gets that they weren't muzzled right? That the research was published in publicly accessible respected publications like (iirc) Science? All that happened was that the government doesn't want its employees running off doing PR work without some control by, gosh yes, the people in charge. How heinous! And if you think that wanting to control their employee's participation in PR is unique to one political party then you are either inexperienced/ignorant, or wilfully blind and trying to capitalize on this non-event for your own political purposes.
Hell, forget about muzzling scientists and other employees, every one of the significant federal political parties in Canada - the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives - control what the elected members of their own party are allowed to say to the public.
Gosh that's just so darned Mom and Apple Pie! It's great that we all agree on the worth of each of these organizations and their lack of agendas. Oh wait, maybe we don't, because we don't know who they are, whether their work is "good" or if it is driven by "fewer agendas" because that's just your opinion and not an actual fact.
But actually it seems to have been pretty clear that the idea is less data to organizations with agendas.
Hmmm and yet last year there was a record salmon run - the largest run since 1913. Of course that was mostly Sockeye, not Coho which are in some danger. So you see you can't just talk about "Salmon"... when people go on rants lumping them all together it seems more like a love of politics than a love of science and "facts".
We might also look into the preferential treatment given native fishing... they get first crack at the stocks, longer periods of fishing than other groups etc. Why? "For traditional ceremonial and sustenance purposes"... funny though I've driven through parts of BC where the you can't throw a stone without hitting a "Fresh Salmon For Sale" sign... of course those were reserves - traditional and sustenance purposes, uh huh sure thing.
I've also walked the shores of lakes on the migration path - well not on the shores, you couldn't do that because they were covered in thousands of dead salmon who were out-competed by other salmon.
And I would be very sceptical of the reports of salmon stocks suffering because of sea lice unless you 'have talked to someone who actually witnessed the methodology used for obtaining samples.
Unfortunately it has become more and more acceptable for "scientists" to let their personal bias inform their work. A very sad state. Trying to lay it all at the feet of politicians, and especially politicians of one flavor, is neither accurate nor productive, it just muddies the waters, incites prejudice and adds to the difficulty of ferreting out the real truth.
Yeah because the Liberals never told a lie, never covered up embarrassing facts, never hid the truth about anything. Uh Huh.
Then there is the NDP. I suppose you might argue that they aren't anti-fact, in the sense of covering things up, but just delusional and unable to perceive anything that conflicts with their fantasy world - of course we wouldn't really know until they formed the federal government and we saw what they actually did with power. But we saw it in Provincial NDP governments - 'nuff said.
Just on the off chance that you aren't simply a troll...
delicate sensibilities which you have
You have no idea whether the gp's sensibilities are delicate or not. But dismissing them as such certainly helps prevent you from having to actually discuss the GP's comment in a sensible and thoughtful manner. Pretty much the same comment applies to your assertion that "most people" don't share those sensibilities.
I would contend that in reality, you are the one displaying less civility by holding others to some unknown "standard" you invented in your own mind and didn't bother telling anyone about.
You can contend all you want but I think most people not raised in a cave understand that, for example, telling someone to "Fuck off and die" is not a civil response. You see for the most part it isn't, as you contend, an "unknown standard" - most people know what their society views as rude. Yeah there might be some shadings of gray here and there that cause an occasional misperception of intent but people generally get the broad brush-strokes of what constitutes civil behavior. More bluntly - most people recognize an asshole when they see/hear one.
If you abandon all places where there are the rude, the actively ignorant, the emotionally damaged (think trolls etc.) then pretty soon there is nowhere to go. Better to stay and try to either ignore the negative or do something about it.
Leaving aside the racist part of your comment, and the wild guess about income level and the completely false statement that I stare out the window waiting for thieves (can you read what I wrote? on the off chance that you can maybe you'd like to try it)... well geez when you put that aside there's nothing left, is there? It's easy to see why you feel the need to be an AC.
For the extremely dense the example was that people would walk up in broad daylight, steal our property, deprive ourselves and others of the benefit of our labors and be completely unembarrassed about it when caught. The point the example was being used to illustrate was that you don't need the internet to see blatant anti-social behavior, but thanks for showing how the Internet assists in that Mr. AC. Hey, I guess the Internet does make a difference though - the thief I encountered was anonymous but at least she wasn't a coward.
Did you read what I wrote - I saw who was taking them: adult woman. Same as with the previous time.
No, they don't look anything like weeds - have you ever seen Lilies in bloom?
And no, they weren't right be the side-walk they were a few feet in from the side-walk - the bench was right by the side-walk.
How about you drop the silly outrage
Hmm how about you actually read what is written before replying and don't presume to lecture me about the validity of my feelings? Talk about blaming the victim... sheeesh, some people's children.
Re:The obvious point that no one ever talks about
on
The Internet's Age of Rage
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't know that that is what is actually going on. Based on what I observe from others, and what I observe in myself, I think the type of communication we are talking about encourages us to think differently. Are you voicing a hostile thought, that you always had, because it is now safe to do so or are you now having a hostile thought (which then gets voiced) that you would not have had before because only now it is safe to think like that?
Rather than tame it perhaps we should learn to alter it. I've always thought that if the average person was as well behaved (for their world) as the average dog is (for its world) then we would be living on a much better planet.
Or put another way, perhaps people are just irrational and sometimes nasty in a way that most animals aren't. Of course once you watch a cat play with its food - until the food finally dies - it's hard to look at them the same way again.
and then there are the ones who don't give a crap who sees them because they only think about themselves to start with... hard to feel guilty about anything when your core belief is that you are the only person in the world that matters.
As an example we grow several flowers in our unfenced front yard and also have a bench out at the edge of the side-walk so people can sit and rest a minute and enjoy the view. Twice in the last two weeks I've seen people just stop and grab a handful of the Lilies for themselves. The last time I got to the front door before they left and asked them WTF she was doing... this woman replies "well I was just going to sit on your lovely bench and admire the view." - a complete non sequitur. I said "So you are rewarding us for putting out the bench by stealing our flowers?" She just repeated the same lame statement and sat on the bench for a minute then left.
The entire patch of lilies has been stripped over the last month. Since we don't get to enjoy them and the neighbours and passers-by don't get to enjoy looking at them we will just stop growing them. The other result is that we now feel like we have to spend time and money to put up a significant fence around our vegetable garden because hearing "Hey I was going to sit on your bench and I was hungry" can't be far off.
Not an answer to your question but here is a suggestion: if you are going south of the equator get yourself every shot you can and read up on all the different parasites and diseases you may encounter. Obviously there are exceptions but when it comes to such things the northern hemisphere is often an amazingly safer place to live than the southern hemisphere. More so if you have never been south of the equator before.
Toasted how? In relation to what? Is your claim just for still images or does it include image sequences as well?
Your claim appears to be that no matter what else you might do if you under-sample then it is impossible to generate an image so that it is just as acceptable to a viewer as an image generated with higher frequency sampling. That's a pretty bold claim - especially since it involves human perception - got anything to back it up?
Slashdot Mirror
Look you misused a word with a specific technical meaning. Your misuse was obvious to anyone who knows the actual meaning of the term you used. I pointed it out and you don't want to accept it. You appear unable to simply gracefully accept your mistake and instead insulted me while also again misusing a technical term. I replied with an illustration of why your usage was incorrect and your response is to insult me again.
As I've said before, adults with a good argument don't need to stoop to ad hominems. Looking at the other posts you have made in the threads of this particular article and in "Followup: Anti-Global Warming Story Itself Flawed" it appears they are mostly insults, sarcasm and unsupported assertions. It is unfortunate that is all you seem to choose to offer.
Using technical terms incorrectly in order to try to imbue one's words with an authenticity and/or authority that they do not merit is, at best, unfortunate. Did context "make it clear" what you "really meant"? Who knows without polling a representative sample of the audience? But, even if it did, it still doesn't change the fact that you were misusing the term. It is unfortunate that you appear to be so unwilling or unable to accept even such a mild correction as the one I made.
I suppose I could keep posting directly analogous examples to further illustrate why your use of the terms was incorrect (and to be blunt: flat out wrong) but that seems pointless as you are making it clear you will not accept this.
In my experience if someone cannot accept having made even minor obvious mistakes it is generally fruitless to try to engage them on larger issues. I think I am far from alone in holding that generalism to be true. I don't know what your goal is but if it is something like convincing people of your position or getting people to try to enter into honest debate with you then you might want to reconsider your approach. But I'm not a mind reader and perhaps you have some other goal and your approach is appropriate to that goal. '
That is a flawed analogy. The lotto drawings are supposed to be random - the post I responded to implied that the spikes were regular, "every 100,000 years or so". All sorts of things happened around each of the spikes - maybe there was a big increase in bunny population around one - that doesn't mean you get to say "oh this spike was caused by the big bunny populations".
Let me say it again, all sorts of things happened around the spikes, you can't select out something that happened around one of the spikes and say that just because it happened near that spike that it was the cause of that spike. The fact that there were other spikes without that event being near them argues against that event being the cause of the spike.
As the saying goes - correlation is not causation and even if that were not true what would you calculate as the correlation coefficient given the 4 cases the post talked about?
Spike= Yes, IR = Yes (IR==Industrial Revolution)
Spike = Yes, IR=No
Spike = Yes, IR=No
Spike = Yes, IR = No
Please note that nothing I am saying in any ways implies a personal disbelief/belief in the existence of global warming or in any particular contribution, or lack thereof, to global warming by humankind. It is simply that the type of argument being put forward in that post does not make any sense regardless of what it is applied to.
No, an algorithm is a very specific method. Finite Element methods are a whole class of algorithms. Having taken graduate numerical analysis I can tell you that if I had told one of my profs that "Finite Element Methods" was an algorithm they would have just laughed. It's like saying the field of baking (Finite Element methods) and a recipe for cookies (an algorithm) are the same thing.
And as for your insult - in my experience adults who have facts to support their arguments don't need to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Watch out for the ox blood!
The /. summarry has this comment appended:
It is hard to see how the the summary is more "over the top" when it is a quote from the "less over the top" press release. In fact the quoted section seems to be quite middle of the road. People should read the Press Release itself.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/
How is this relevant? In the example there are 4 spikes - occurring on a cyclical basis - and one> of them is near the industrial revolution. If someone wants to then infer that the cause of the 4th spike was the industrial revolution, just because of the proximity of the two events, that is a pretty huge leap... The other three spikes were then caused by something else that was no longer present but by a huge coincidence right on cue the industrial revolution "saved the day" by producing the 4th cycle more or less on time?
Finite Element Analysis is not an algorithm, it is a general method. Calling it an algorithm is no more accurate than calling, for example, Numerical Analysis an algorithm. Calling it an algorithm may impart meaning or shadings to a discussion that should not be there.
Well first let me point out what has already been said elsewhere - the government isn't suppressing the scientists work - it has been published in reputable journals. The government does want control over what PR activities its employees engage in - seems perfectly normal to me, in no way suppresses the scientific findings from being reported and media control is something engaged in by all governments.
Second, you ask for examples of other parties suppressing the work of 3rd parties - but
a) the work isn't being supressed, but even if it was...
b) these aren't third parties they are employees of the government; a third party would be a university scientist, a news person being censored etc.
c) all governments suppress information, reports about their own workings that are generated by their own employees
d) You admit to the dishonesty of the other parties - who cares what the particular form is? If they are dishonest then they are dishonest; IMHO saying that one type is worse than the other is just making convenient definitions to push a political agenda.
Everyone gets that they weren't muzzled right? That the research was published in publicly accessible respected publications like (iirc) Science? All that happened was that the government doesn't want its employees running off doing PR work without some control by, gosh yes, the people in charge. How heinous! And if you think that wanting to control their employee's participation in PR is unique to one political party then you are either inexperienced/ignorant, or wilfully blind and trying to capitalize on this non-event for your own political purposes.
Hell, forget about muzzling scientists and other employees, every one of the significant federal political parties in Canada - the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives - control what the elected members of their own party are allowed to say to the public.
Gosh that's just so darned Mom and Apple Pie! It's great that we all agree on the worth of each of these organizations and their lack of agendas. Oh wait, maybe we don't, because we don't know who they are, whether their work is "good" or if it is driven by "fewer agendas" because that's just your opinion and not an actual fact.
But actually it seems to have been pretty clear that the idea is less data to organizations with agendas.
Hmmm and yet last year there was a record salmon run - the largest run since 1913. Of course that was mostly Sockeye, not Coho which are in some danger. So you see you can't just talk about "Salmon" ... when people go on rants lumping them all together it seems more like a love of politics than a love of science and "facts".
We might also look into the preferential treatment given native fishing... they get first crack at the stocks, longer periods of fishing than other groups etc. Why? "For traditional ceremonial and sustenance purposes"... funny though I've driven through parts of BC where the you can't throw a stone without hitting a "Fresh Salmon For Sale" sign... of course those were reserves - traditional and sustenance purposes, uh huh sure thing.
I've also walked the shores of lakes on the migration path - well not on the shores, you couldn't do that because they were covered in thousands of dead salmon who were out-competed by other salmon.
And I would be very sceptical of the reports of salmon stocks suffering because of sea lice unless you 'have talked to someone who actually witnessed the methodology used for obtaining samples.
Unfortunately it has become more and more acceptable for "scientists" to let their personal bias inform their work. A very sad state. Trying to lay it all at the feet of politicians, and especially politicians of one flavor, is neither accurate nor productive, it just muddies the waters, incites prejudice and adds to the difficulty of ferreting out the real truth.
http://www.danmccomb.com/posts/706/record-salmon-run-hits-british-columbia/
http://fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&country=0&special=&monthyear=&day=&id=38227&ndb=1&df=0
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100905/bc-salmon-fisheries-100905/20100905?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
Wow. A long practically foaming at the mouth rant bereft of a single fact - but already scored "4 Insightful"... sigh, welcome to /. I guess.
Yeah because the Liberals never told a lie, never covered up embarrassing facts, never hid the truth about anything. Uh Huh.
Then there is the NDP. I suppose you might argue that they aren't anti-fact, in the sense of covering things up, but just delusional and unable to perceive anything that conflicts with their fantasy world - of course we wouldn't really know until they formed the federal government and we saw what they actually did with power. But we saw it in Provincial NDP governments - 'nuff said.
LOL - thanks for the grins!
Just on the off chance that you aren't simply a troll...
You have no idea whether the gp's sensibilities are delicate or not. But dismissing them as such certainly helps prevent you from having to actually discuss the GP's comment in a sensible and thoughtful manner. Pretty much the same comment applies to your assertion that "most people" don't share those sensibilities.
You can contend all you want but I think most people not raised in a cave understand that, for example, telling someone to "Fuck off and die" is not a civil response. You see for the most part it isn't, as you contend, an "unknown standard" - most people know what their society views as rude. Yeah there might be some shadings of gray here and there that cause an occasional misperception of intent but people generally get the broad brush-strokes of what constitutes civil behavior. More bluntly - most people recognize an asshole when they see/hear one.
If you abandon all places where there are the rude, the actively ignorant, the emotionally damaged (think trolls etc.) then pretty soon there is nowhere to go. Better to stay and try to either ignore the negative or do something about it.
I think that's a good analysis of what may be happening.
Leaving aside the racist part of your comment, and the wild guess about income level and the completely false statement that I stare out the window waiting for thieves (can you read what I wrote? on the off chance that you can maybe you'd like to try it)... well geez when you put that aside there's nothing left, is there? It's easy to see why you feel the need to be an AC.
For the extremely dense the example was that people would walk up in broad daylight, steal our property, deprive ourselves and others of the benefit of our labors and be completely unembarrassed about it when caught. The point the example was being used to illustrate was that you don't need the internet to see blatant anti-social behavior, but thanks for showing how the Internet assists in that Mr. AC. Hey, I guess the Internet does make a difference though - the thief I encountered was anonymous but at least she wasn't a coward.
Did you read what I wrote - I saw who was taking them: adult woman. Same as with the previous time.
No, they don't look anything like weeds - have you ever seen Lilies in bloom?
And no, they weren't right be the side-walk they were a few feet in from the side-walk - the bench was right by the side-walk.
Hmm how about you actually read what is written before replying and don't presume to lecture me about the validity of my feelings? Talk about blaming the victim... sheeesh, some people's children.
I don't know that that is what is actually going on. Based on what I observe from others, and what I observe in myself, I think the type of communication we are talking about encourages us to think differently. Are you voicing a hostile thought, that you always had, because it is now safe to do so or are you now having a hostile thought (which then gets voiced) that you would not have had before because only now it is safe to think like that?
Rather than tame it perhaps we should learn to alter it. I've always thought that if the average person was as well behaved (for their world) as the average dog is (for its world) then we would be living on a much better planet.
Or put another way, perhaps people are just irrational and sometimes nasty in a way that most animals aren't. Of course once you watch a cat play with its food - until the food finally dies - it's hard to look at them the same way again.
and then there are the ones who don't give a crap who sees them because they only think about themselves to start with... hard to feel guilty about anything when your core belief is that you are the only person in the world that matters.
As an example we grow several flowers in our unfenced front yard and also have a bench out at the edge of the side-walk so people can sit and rest a minute and enjoy the view. Twice in the last two weeks I've seen people just stop and grab a handful of the Lilies for themselves. The last time I got to the front door before they left and asked them WTF she was doing... this woman replies "well I was just going to sit on your lovely bench and admire the view." - a complete non sequitur. I said "So you are rewarding us for putting out the bench by stealing our flowers?" She just repeated the same lame statement and sat on the bench for a minute then left.
The entire patch of lilies has been stripped over the last month. Since we don't get to enjoy them and the neighbours and passers-by don't get to enjoy looking at them we will just stop growing them. The other result is that we now feel like we have to spend time and money to put up a significant fence around our vegetable garden because hearing "Hey I was going to sit on your bench and I was hungry" can't be far off.
Not an answer to your question but here is a suggestion: if you are going south of the equator get yourself every shot you can and read up on all the different parasites and diseases you may encounter. Obviously there are exceptions but when it comes to such things the northern hemisphere is often an amazingly safer place to live than the southern hemisphere. More so if you have never been south of the equator before.
Being altitude challenged?
Toasted how? In relation to what? Is your claim just for still images or does it include image sequences as well?
Your claim appears to be that no matter what else you might do if you under-sample then it is impossible to generate an image so that it is just as acceptable to a viewer as an image generated with higher frequency sampling. That's a pretty bold claim - especially since it involves human perception - got anything to back it up?