Sure absorption gets worse as you age but all that does is increase the risk of deficiency. The question of whether or not one should take supplements is only answered if that risk is significantly increased in most people (at some particular age). You haven't provided a useful answer to that.
Philosophy as others have remarked is a pretty broad subject. Some things like symbolic logic are very similar to the methods used in Computer Science which have a lot to do with software development and problem solving (although we are definitely living in the age where formal views of program correctness are not the norm).
Other things about philosophy like "intentionality" as a field of study are farther off, perhaps to the point of inconsequential.
That said much of the posting is full of things you find in fluff pieces.
it occurred to me that over these past few years Philosophy has a more prominent role in Computer Science then ever before
It seems to me that that statement would be true even if you added just one "philosophical thing" to Computer Science. So the real question isn't "Is it more than ever before?" but "Has the rate of change increased significantly?". It's certainly possible that that's what the author meant but a) Where's the supporting information? b) Who cares what some anonymous joe on the internet thinks?
and the numbers of philosophy graduates double majoring in computer science and information systems are climbing
Assuming this is true it could easily be due to trends in education rather than reflecting some kind of merger of the two. For example it appears to me that Colleges and Universities are becoming much more flexible in program requirements. This would make all sorts of minors, double-majors, etc... climb in numbers since it was difficult to impossible to enroll in these programs in policies prior.
Also it again misses the point. It's more important to know the rate which they are climbing relative to the past.
Sorry if this was unclear. I expect that all of the parity data is read but that doesn't mean the entire array is read.
I got the idea from Robin's article that a 12TB (13 1TB Drive) SATA RAID 5 would be guaranteed to experience an URE during rebuild.
But since it's only reading the parity data (and the data to reconstruct the "lost" parity partition) The odds are much better (but that doesn't mean acceptable) i.e. 1 in 12 chance of a URE.
Just to jump in here...you can't read parity data and invent the missing bits. You need to read the n-1 data bits + parity to work out your missing bit.
Well said. I was pretty low on the sleep when I wrote this. I should have remembered this:-)
If you really did get 1 unrecoverable error out of every 12TB read we'd have an awful lot more data loss on personal computers.
I admit I find the value counter-intuitive too but at the same time I acknowledge that given the size of data that I generally move about on my hard drive it seems plausible that these errors are beneath our ability to detect.
So if you're with me so far try bounding things on the basis of something that you would have experienced vs something you would have heard of.
For example I've never opened a word file to find a sector-sized error but since word files are generally less than 20 MB.
Even given that I shuffle hundreds of word files around on my drive. I'd still have to do it over 600,000 times to be guaranteed an URE. On the other hand if most people shuffle hundreds of small documents across their hard drive. Then it only makes the odds of knowing someone who has had this problem around the one in one or two hundred mark. I've certainly have met people who have had corrupted files and It's difficult to discount this as a possible cause.
Now clearly bigger files represent a higher likelihood so moving up the chain lets look at the 1GB videos I routinely have on my hard drive. Currently I can't have more than about 100 or so of these on my drive but even so I'd still need to move about 12,000 of these to guarantee an error. Most of these use some form of lossy compression. So even though I am more likely to encounter a read error it also seems much less likely that I would notice. Not to mention that there are some upper layer facilities to fix problems with these files.
Let's take the biggest amount of personal data I tend to move: My RAID. I had about 1TB of data on a RAID 5 across eight 200GB discs. I moved this to a 1.5 TB RAID 5 on 4 500GB discs and then from there to a 3TB RAID 50 on 8 500GB discs.
There was only a 1 in 12 chance of any data corruption in the first move, the same in the second move. Still an 84% chance of never having a single sector hurt.
It's an article about raid predicting doom written by a guy that knows nothing about raid.
He's correct in most things. I'm just not sure I agree with him on his dates and although I expect your example is supposed to be funny it's probably better to pick one that applies. If you read the article you'll see that depending on how many drives you have per RAID5 unit your error rate may be acceptable. However Robin makes the pretty observant point that you are essentially paying more for less protection as raid drives grow in size.
So things he's correct on:
Drives fail (enterprise or otherwise) at about 3% per year. URE do occur but the 1 per 12TB of data read quantity is for SATA drives.
Questionable things:
RAID controllers probably don't read the entire surface during a rebuild but rather just the parity portions of the disk. This means in a RAID5 of 1TB disks. You are reading 1TB of data. Which would likely mean that you have a 1 in 12 chance of getting an URE. This may be an acceptable risk for some.
The assertion that it's the "end of raid 5" is a little severe. A RAID50 mitigates the risk and the functions for calculating your parity data can be extended arbitrarily HOWEVER this is always at the expense of performance.
The rate of disk growth may not follow the proscribed pattern.
Red Herrings(?):
Does the controller take the array offline if it encounters an URE during rebuild or does it continue? This may make change the result from being a system halt to data corruption but neither are unacceptable in the enterprise IMHO.
The good argument underlying "doomsday dates" is that it seems reasonable that drive size is increasing at a much faster rate than these two figures are decreasing. Which means as storage needs grow the size of drives deployed will also likely grow but there is now an extra expense to consider.
Well, telling someone who didn't quite understand something
Strawman again. I'll spell it out for you this time (since it seems that you need to be spoon fed logic too). You are rebutting my requests to go away with "it was simply that I didn't understand". However this is not the rationale for which you were rebuffed. Ergo you are not addressing the argument made.
See: Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138
that they should go away and never come back, that the IT world doesn't need them
Now lets establish proper context. You said that you were educated by us. I simply asked for something in exchange. I honestly don't see the need for people who behave in the way that you did in starting this thread. Chances are whatever good you do in the IT world there are lots of people who do it as well. So I contrast that with what you appear to do bad. Assuming for the moment that you are in the IT field then you seem to have no problem making pronouncements with a weight that is not supported in your knowledge. I don't think the IT world needs this since they are likely to get plenty of what good you do from elsewhere.
emotive phrasing such as "spouting ignorant crap
"crap" is about the closest you get to something emotive there (you're begging the question BTW). Even so there's little wrong with using it for emphasis. Your statements were ignorant. Period.
You should relax a bit. Or stop transferring issues in one area of your life onto people you'll never meet and don't know, which seems to be what is happening here as I find it hard to believe I'm getting you this irate myself.
The fact of the matter is I'm not irate. Not even a little. So I'm not sure how I should relax more. Considering this isn't the only area where you attempt to draw conclusions with little or no information. I'll hope you understand if you're not taken seriously.
A strawman is where I pretend you've made an argument so that I can attack it. You need to check your definitions.
Not really. You argued essentially "What's the problem? People benefited." And I'm saying that the criticism isn't leveled at whatever the outcome is here. A behavior can't be justified by a single result any more than killing randomly can be justified by the fact that you are likely to eventually kill someone who deserves it.
And it's not an argument from information I can't reasonably have.
You argued:
Anyone reading this thread has learnt more from the responses...
You are not in a position to state what people generally have learned from this thread let alone "anyone". QED.
things like 'you forgot problems with implementation from [your list of] human error and physical security' just don't work. Do you think implementation errors are not human error?
Depends on what you mean and in what context. If you mean "system implementation" and you have your technical staff in-house. Then I could see the usage. However I'm not talking about that I'm talking about things like algorithmic implementation. That is to say how an algorithm or process is rendered, i.e. (Code, Hardware,etc..). Having a piece of hardware that incorporates AES may be completely useless if the entropy of the RNG is insufficient. This has nothing to do with the people in your employ or in your security process. This is why I tend to agree with Schneier when he says: "Security isn't something you can BUY but it is something you need to GET". Implying to me that its only by understanding security technologies and principles can you deploy a secure system. So by contrast people who open up a webUI and click the "Secure that" button. Really haven't done anything for security since it's unlikely they are able to quantify the risk they've mitigated.
*looks around*
What? That was it? That was the best you had in my alleged "logical flaws".
So then should I assume that you understand that you're wrong about all the
The author has absolutely no data to back up his claims
Not really.
Just a few tidbits from the original paper. The author looked at the data collected by RAND and found out that since 1968 - 64% of Terrorist Acts Worldwide are Anonymous.
There's a lot of stuff about these organizations being politically diffuse. For example Bin Laden's fatwas throughout the 1990's were primarily aimed at Muslims! It was only in 2001 that he talked about the US. The author cites quotes from members of Al-Qaida criticizing their own lack of direction.
The author also cites Abrams study on the success rate of political change. Which is prety bad..of twenty-eight randomly selected cases the success rate was zero.
Other stuff on how terrorism isn't being used as a "last resort" to political ends.
If terrorism is actually about gaining political change then the people involved are doing so in a very inefficient way. Even to the point of giving up gaining most of their own stated political goals.
So you have two choices here: Terrorists are irrational or they are rationally pursuant of a different goal than political change.
The author supplies a goal that better fits the data (the given data anyway) than the idea of "political change"
At my institution we have no residence so that probably mitigates the issue somewhat. We also aren't a US institution so that probably saves us too since our government hasn't gone retarded in this respect.
Our entire campus is fed by a 100Mb connection. We are pretty close to our ISP's POP which I surmise gets us a comparably awesome rate. The director says he gets a few calls from ISPs per year and all he does is quote our rate to them and they say "Can't do it".
We have only twice taken any kind of action against P2P users.
1) We have an edge device that shapes unencrypted P2P to a cap of 3Mb/s. Poorly. Turning on encryption goes through it like a hot knife through butter.
2) We had a single event which ended up in pretty significant network outages. P2P significantly contributed to exhausting the number of connections in the NAT table (it was kind of funny because the NOC actually brought IBM in to figure it out and they couldn't - I figured it out that afternoon while walking home). So I had the router report people who were using 300 or more connections and kicked them off. Then had the helpdesk refer them to me when they complained. Nice thing about this is that no accusation of P2P use was necessary. All we had to do is say: "You were making 300 connections to external machines. We feel this constitutes abuse of network resources.". When they asked "How could this happen". I'd rattle off a few reasons but when I came to "P2P programs like..." 90% of them started looking sheepish. We stopped doing this after a week or so by that time we had adjusted the NAT box (required a kernel parameter change so we couldn't do it right away).
According to our statistics we never use more than 20% of our connection. That's with virtually no restrictions.
Other institutions that I know of which *do* have a residence use a "bandwidth supply" method. Students have some supply of bandwidth that they can use over some fixed period (3MB/week or whatever) they can use that at an unlimited rate but after the 3MB is used up you are at some very low fixed rate (i.e. 64kb/s).
Anyone reading this thread has learnt more from the responses to my mistake than they would have if I hadn't made it so that's good.
That's technically an argument from information that you can't reasonably have. Not to mention it's a strawman. There's a difference between speaking out against a behavior and speaking out against an event.
You may appreciate a friendlier attitude next time you are wrong about something.
Strawman. This isn't, as stated before about being simply incorrect it's about your being pompous AND ignorant. This is markedly different than simply being wrong.
I was misled by you talking about needing a secure optical cable between the sites.
Your rebuttal would almost be appropriate if I had made an argument like that. I'm not even sure what you mean by "secure optical cable"
I see now that such technology is actually relatively cheap
"Relatively" requires a reference point. Without which your argument is meaningless.
and can in fact use a lot of existing infrastructure.
There are several technical issues in doing this which you conveniently leave out. I have my doubts that you read much more than the wiki entry (which you should have done before your first post). Please excuse the lack of detail here (and I even understand if someone as arrogant as you appear to be would take this as some kind of deceit or evasion on my part) but I'm not interested in perpetuating the cycle of "get spoon-fed information -> Turn around and spew unexamined pontifications -> Claim that this is for the betterment of others"
People have run such key exchanges over 140+ kilometres and have also actually done them through the air for similar distances. So it seems that such technology is certainly viable
Only if you get to drop an important variable from the equation.
if there is a need for it, and there actually have been commercial uses of it so far.
But not what most seem to classify as a general commercial success.
Which brings us back full circle to Bruce Schneier's assumption that other links in the chain are breakable.
Man where did you learn to argue? All links in the chain are breakable - including the QKDS (except in either an idealized state or with current hardware the creation of a chicken-egg problem). Bruce is arguing that the RR is always going to be significantly higher for the other factors impeding general need.
Now we know that the encryption algorithms themselves are pretty strong
No they are strong relative to certain other features and have evolved with care to the risk involved.
which leaves us with human error and physical security.
No. You're leaving out implementation - possibly a few other factors depending on how broad you make "human error".
It seems a bit much that anyone should say that these aspects are always weak therefore improving other links is worthless.
Bruce appears to be saying that key distribution is always going to be relatively low-risk compared to other factors. For example cryptographic strength varies as a function of key length. It's easy to see how this scales as key breaking hardware scales. However it's unclear how to scale human security. Ergo when you go to measure risk your profile tends to be high.
If that were the case why bother with encryption in the first place?
Because you are using the wrong metric. Risk is a combination of a number of factors one of which is frequency. Key exchange (of this kind) by definition is always going to be done far less frequently than message transmission.
Today, secure keys are exchanged by courier. That is in fact less secure than this method of QKD in that it introduces a human element.
Do you mean an IDEAL QKDS or an actual system? If an actual system please provide details as to how the sy
You came, you spouted ignorant crap (making the same mistake multiple times I might add), you then tried to play up this result as education. You were then rightfully compared to someone who makes statements with much higher confidence than they have evidence to back it up. Now what? Face saving with an obtuse quip?
Like I said: The IT world doesn't really need anything resembling you.
Then, if you don't mind doing something in return for your education: Go away and don't come back.
Stupid arrogance is the worst kind. Your postings of half-truths and complete misconceptions may occasionally earn you an education from the school of hard knocks but they seem just if not more likely to make people around you (or say those who mod you to +5) stupider.
It seems like you may have some interest or experience in IT as a career. If so let me give you some anecdotal advice: I personally can't count the times I've had to perform hours of work undoing the damage caused by people like you who make assertions with confidence inversely proportional to their education on the subject. They cost companies money.
Hmmm...I would have thought that QKDS have some way of checking that the information was received properly.
For example before you distribute the key. You encrypt a short message. Then you send it to the recipient to decrypt. If the key was intercepted then the message would be unreadable.
So from my position of ignorance, all I can do is choose what appears to be the most powerful method of encryption based on my reading.
No matter how much you want to think it. A QKDS is still not an encryption method. It's a key distribution method.
dismissing futuristic code breaking methods (based on quantum computing) as being "years away from being practical." I'm young enough that I can be concerned about what the technology will be fifteen years from now.
And if you had read the article closer he claims that key length compensates for Quantum codebreaking. It is also unclear if a sizable quantum computer can even be built. You are again, failing your own criteria since QKDS is not encryption and since quantum codebreaking attacks a cryptosystem regardless of how well or secret the key is. Your attempt at forward thinking has failed.
As I understand it, a QKDS can give me greater confidence in long term security.
Not necessarily. Key distribution is generally one-time. Key use, storage, etc... are all orders of magnitude more frequent in the long run. Ergo again you don't even meet your own criteria. Not only that but actual QKDS devices (as opposed to idealized systems) have their own security flaws (side-band attacks). So the advantage they confer is difficult to measure against traditional systems.
Secondly "greater", "better", "faster" are all terribly ignorant criteria to base a decision on. The true question is does it add *SIGNIFICANTLY* to long term protection. It seems likely that every other major factor outweighs any gains from a QKDS by many orders of magnitude in the long term.
In any case, one aspect of the article is wrong - he says it has no commercial future.
Well if so you haven't made a useful argument to that effect.
Let's break the security market up into two groups. Those who buy based on rational principles and those who don't. Since the positive effect of an ideal QKDS is incredibly small. The percentage of the first group that this is going to be cost-effective for is going to be equally small. So the side that you need to bank on to make this a commercial success is the irrational buyers.
whether only "ignorant" people such as myself consider it worthwhile or not, we'll be buying it
It's the encryption technology that I can't control / verify.
First of all lets define what is being discussed: Bruce is talking about Quantum Cryptography that is to say a Quantum Key Distribution System.
Now...let's kick your ignorant ass.
A Quantum Key Distribution system isn't really any more under your control or verifiable by you than one that uses SSL. Both can have flawed implementations both are probably way beyond your skill set to verify.
So give me encryption that I can trust
A quantum key distribution system is NOT unbreakable encryption. Period. It simply gives you perfect assurance that your encryption keys are given (and hopefully known) only to the person they are intended.
You still need an encryption algorithm to USE those keys. That algorithm could be the worst one on the planet.
Schneier has no business telling me "your set up is flawed so there's no point in giving you secure encryption."
What he seems to be talking about is relative risk. One of those things I find that people, the media, bloggers and especially you are inordinately bad at evaluating.
Key transmission is not only one of the things we generally don't have to worry about it doesn't even seem to appear on your list of ignorant gripes...
to wit:
It's for me to judge and all I want is to ensure that no weak links come in from outside my control, i.e. a flawed algorithm or technology.
And QKDS doesn't fix a flawed encryption algorithm or a flawed implementation.
You're forgetting how many zombie computers there are in existence that can be used at a hacker's whim to crack such.
What I'm actually doing is addressing the actual article. The software itself boasts a theoretical maximum of 10'000 nodes.
Now if for some reason you're making up a completely different question and trying to apply my answer to it. It's a) Understandable why you're confused and b) weird how you're still wrong.
Assuming we are still talking about brute forcing WPA and we will also assume that this can be done by distributing a packet capture of some adequate size. So they don't all have to be in range of the same AP system.
Kraken is, as far as I know the largest documented botnet. It comes in around 400,000 machines. Now let assume a worst case scenario. All of these machines are capable of 60 000 cracks/second, all of them have four of these GPU cards in them giving them a 100x speedup. And that this process can scale almost perfectly linearly. Given that WPA has a max key length of 256 bits. A brute force attack would take: (((2^256) / 2400000000000)/31536000) years to complete. Google's calculator shows this to be: 1.52989294 * 10^57
Weird that this article seems to call down doom for WPA in general and particularly in the enterprise.
a) 100x increase, even using 10,000 machines seems insignificant if you are using the maximum WPA key length employing uppercase, lowercase and punctuation? Even a 30 char password seems to last far longer than most of us will be alive. So at worst all this changes is the minimum key length that can usefully be employed on WPA.
b) In the enterprise in my experience you either use no encrypting and rely on protection at other layers (VPN, SSL, etc) or you use a RADIUS based system that hands out a new key for each session. This seems even less likely to be affected by this. Unless...and I admit I've never checked this...they keys being used have some weakness (short, not very complex, etc...) which, again at worst seems to be a wake-up call for hardware vendors if nothing else.
So wrt wireless this is interesting but hardly industry changing.
I can't get over this sort of story. "We programmed our INCOMPLETE understanding of the cosmos into this simulation, which tells us X, therefore X is more likely."
Anything based on a computer simulation is based on our arbitrarily incomplete knowledge. To base even the least significant conclusions upon it seems laughably irresponsible and unscientific.
This is one of those lines of reasoning that must seem logical to some people but I can't really figure out who.
Ok so nothing can be computed without complete knowledge? That's a weird thing to say since I suspect that even you would agree that it's trivial to write a program that calculates a ballistic trajectory for a specific cannon to a high degree of accuracy but without taking into account every variable. This would be an example of a computer model that is both incomplete and accurate.
I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrarily incomplete" but if I was to guess it would mean that we are unable to tell how much of the observable universe we can model. I.e. the universe might have 847345 fundamental forces (or interactions) but we only have observed four.
However the trick in saying something like "how much" is not in knowing what percentage of these forces you can model but rather knowing what rules carry the most influence. But by lucky chance, in this universe the rules that carry the most influence are also the ones easiest to observe.
This is why modern physics actually can model a great deal of goings on in the universe.
What you seem to be insisting on is an arbitrarily high standard of evidence. i.e. "Prove that there are no other rules in the universe before you conclude anything".
To me anyway this is more unscientific than using a computer model to extrapolate a result from known evidence.
But hey, I was a music major, so what do I know.
Not enough to avoid commenting on that which you know not.
Well Larry is correct that the term is so broad that it's useless. A quick scan across the slashdot responses I see an awful lot defending Google Apps and Gmail.
I'd never have considered using gmail as "Cloud computing" possibly "using a service built on cloud computing" but only if "cloud computing" now means any kind of farmed solution and not a generic kind of clustered processing. Otherwise then there's no reason to even call gmail "Cloud Computing".
The other thing, and perhaps it's just that I generally think of all manner of press (and that goes double for the blogosphere) to be ridiculously under informed but did anyone else see the difference between the actually quotes or references to Stallman and the other article text?
For example:
"But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time."
I could agree to this, currently there is no universal cloud computing platform or API so it could be argued that this is just one proprietary platform being replaced with another. Worse you're replacing something that you used (and this is changing somewhat) to pay once for and own for as long as you wanted to maintain it. To something that you are continually paying for.
Now does that idea extend to any and all web based applications? Of course not but weird thing I see here is that only place you see Gmail mentioned is in the first sentence.
"The concept of using web-based programs like Google's Gmail.."
Then the author goes and talks about cloud computing. Gmail is never used in the rest of the article and nowhere in quotes by Stallman.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that Stallman has gone nuts and/or hates Gmail. Recent things I've read by Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak and Linus Torvalis. Not to mention older things by Theo de Radt convince me that an awful lot of people from the computing world have gone around the bend.
But I'm equally willing to believe that the press is as ill equipped as usual to talk about the things they cover.
If you read what I was replying to again, I want you to see that the person was basically trying to put the onus of proof
on someone who either made (or affirmed) the statement....which is where it is most usefully put
on the OP not to discover the truth, but to try and weaken his argument without giving his own evidence.
Criticizing a statement simply because it lacks support is valid. Those statements which are easily and strongly supported stand and those which are not fall away. This correctly assigns the proper confidence to the idea presented.
Requiring someone have some particular motive at the time is a) Stupid - since it's difficult if not impossible to assess objectively. b) unnecessary - arguments may be fully evaluated without said knowledge.
Speaking of stupid, stupid is chasing someone from article to article with ad hominem in mind.
Well I'm glad you've come to admit this to yourself. It's part of the healing process.
Obviously, you don't like when someone provides sources you have to pay for
I think to understand my criticism you need to read my post:-) I chided you for a) criticizing someone for not reading a Wikipedia article when it didn't add anything to the discussion which implies that you didn't even take the time to click the reference links and b) Not supporting your point.
Besides what kind of reference is: "Here these articles I haven't read prove my point". Unless you are claiming you have read the article in question. In which case please cite the relevant portions.
Try looking at the "data" yourself, without preconditions, and come up with your own projections.
When you do, you will have already failed, since the data provided is not enough to make an accurate projection. This has been proven again and again as projections and simulations falter and fail (As was pointed out by someone above, who I am too lazy to quote).
Argument from anonymous authority. Classic logical flaw.
But do go on, everyone is very impressed by your following of this doomsday cult.
If you projected any harder you could point yourself at a wall and give slideshows.
Again reading is key here. Nowhere did I state my position on anything to do with Climate Science. Just your incredible ignorance of methodology and perhaps implied how you are far more interested in rhetoric than a useful argument.
Of course, you may say that you only want me to prove my point using references
As opposed to taking your word for it?
There's only one problem with that, which is that I am not required to prove the negative.
Here I wrote:
If you want to refute an argument like the one give post the error of the methodology stated, and then show how the meaning inferred in the measurement can be explained through experimental error.
What negative are you being required to prove here? It looks like you are being asked to show that your assertion that isotopic analysis is completely untenable for climate study. Through simple and objective means.
When you have a trend of successful projections year after year, feel free to come back and make your point....speaking of unsuccessful projections....you're doing it again. Again support your position about isotopic analysis or siddown.:-)
When I find someone who makes a stupid comment I find it interesting to poke about other threads they comment on....Sometimes what I see enforces that the aforementioned comment was a one-off, a brain fart common to all but here we are again with someone who is without clue.
Pardon me if I'm a little skeptical that between 8:09 AM and 10:14 AM you researched EVERY form of climatic isotopic analysis and determined their experimental error?!
What you don't appear to understand is the idea that ALL measurements are inexact. The question is only to what degree.
If you want to refute an argument like the one give post the error of the methodology stated, and then show how the meaning inferred in the measurement can be explained through experimental error.
If you don't know both the error of the methodology you are dismissing and the values obtained through it. Then you don't really have enough information to defend your position and you should probably "SIT BACK DOWN"
If you have something to add to the article, why don't you just add it, and cite it.
Your first error is that I have something I wish to add to the article. I don't.
What I did have is something I wished to add to your unintelligent commentary. Which was chiding the person for something very similar to what you did.
Instead of complaining about the cited content, try and get it removed.
I'm not complaining about your uninformed statement. I'm correcting it.
Because there have been many published studies on the success of homeschooled children in education vs. their formally-schooled counterparts.
If there is better information than an abstract with results but no error...shouldn't you have taken your own advice and added that to the article?
That aside, if you had cites to actually useful articles. Wouldn't it have been more useful to post them?
Note that I did not say that Homeschooling always produces good results. ...aaaand note that you are responding to a point that was never made.
But it has a better track record than the alternatives.
This has not been supported with useful evidence in this discussion.
Just so you are less confused you did two monumentally stupid things here:
a) Corrected someone on a specific aspect of a subject, directing them to an article which (without cost anyway) had zero to contribute to the subject. Yes, figures without errors are useless in this respect.
b) Making an assertion without useful support.
Instead of trying to fight it, why not try to find out why it is more successful and take lessons from it.
It's like talking to a flat-earther here. I can't "fight" what hasn't been established.
Interesting that you seem to have completely avoided the point about selection bias. If you don't see that as a problem that needs significant attention in any study on homeschooling then I question how you are in any position to suggest what studies someone should read.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure absorption gets worse as you age but all that does is increase the risk of deficiency. The question of whether or not one should take supplements is only answered if that risk is significantly increased in most people (at some particular age). You haven't provided a useful answer to that.
Philosophy as others have remarked is a pretty broad subject. Some things like symbolic logic are very similar to the methods used in Computer Science which have a lot to do with software development and problem solving (although we are definitely living in the age where formal views of program correctness are not the norm).
Other things about philosophy like "intentionality" as a field of study are farther off, perhaps to the point of inconsequential.
That said much of the posting is full of things you find in fluff pieces.
it occurred to me that over these past few years Philosophy has a more prominent role in Computer Science then ever before
It seems to me that that statement would be true even if you added just one "philosophical thing" to Computer Science. So the real question isn't "Is it more than ever before?" but "Has the rate of change increased significantly?". It's certainly possible that that's what the author meant but a) Where's the supporting information? b) Who cares what some anonymous joe on the internet thinks?
and the numbers of philosophy graduates double majoring in computer science and information systems are climbing
Assuming this is true it could easily be due to trends in education rather than reflecting some kind of merger of the two. For example it appears to me that Colleges and Universities are becoming much more flexible in program requirements. This would make all sorts of minors, double-majors, etc... climb in numbers since it was difficult to impossible to enroll in these programs in policies prior.
Also it again misses the point. It's more important to know the rate which they are climbing relative to the past.
[Citation Needed]
And...obviously I'm on drugs since the XOR has to be of the parity+remaining devices.
I still blame sleep dep here.
Sorry if this was unclear. I expect that all of the parity data is read but that doesn't mean the entire array is read.
I got the idea from Robin's article that a 12TB (13 1TB Drive) SATA RAID 5 would be guaranteed to experience an URE during rebuild.
But since it's only reading the parity data (and the data to reconstruct the "lost" parity partition) The odds are much better (but that doesn't mean acceptable) i.e. 1 in 12 chance of a URE.
Just to jump in here...you can't read parity data and invent the missing bits. You need to read the n-1 data bits + parity to work out your missing bit.
Well said. I was pretty low on the sleep when I wrote this. I should have remembered this :-)
If you really did get 1 unrecoverable error out of every 12TB read we'd have an awful lot more data loss on personal computers.
I admit I find the value counter-intuitive too but at the same time I acknowledge that given the size of data that I generally move about on my hard drive it seems plausible that these errors are beneath our ability to detect.
So if you're with me so far try bounding things on the basis of something that you would have experienced vs something you would have heard of.
For example I've never opened a word file to find a sector-sized error but since word files are generally less than 20 MB.
Even given that I shuffle hundreds of word files around on my drive. I'd still have to do it over 600,000 times to be guaranteed an URE. On the other hand if most people shuffle hundreds of small documents across their hard drive. Then it only makes the odds of
knowing someone who has had this problem around the one in one or two hundred mark. I've certainly have met people who have had corrupted files and It's difficult to discount this as a possible cause.
Now clearly bigger files represent a higher likelihood so moving up the chain lets look at the 1GB videos I routinely have on my hard drive. Currently I can't have more than about 100 or so of these on my drive but even so I'd still need to move about 12,000 of these to guarantee an error. Most of these use some form of lossy compression. So even though I am more likely to encounter a read error it also seems much less likely that I would notice. Not to mention that there are some upper layer facilities to fix problems with these files.
Let's take the biggest amount of personal data I tend to move: My RAID. I had about 1TB of data on a RAID 5 across eight 200GB discs. I moved this to a 1.5 TB RAID 5 on 4 500GB discs and then from there to a 3TB RAID 50 on 8 500GB discs.
There was only a 1 in 12 chance of any data corruption in the first move, the same in the second move. Still an 84% chance of never having a single sector hurt.
That combined with info from places like CERN
It seems a reasonable conclusion to me.
Sorry to have surpassed your capacity for reading. Might explain your other actions too.
It's an article about raid predicting doom written by a guy that knows nothing about raid.
He's correct in most things. I'm just not sure I agree with him on his dates and although I expect your example is supposed to be funny it's probably better to pick one that applies. If you read the article you'll see that depending on how many drives you have per RAID5 unit your error rate may be acceptable. However Robin makes the pretty observant point that you are essentially paying more for less protection as raid drives grow in size.
So things he's correct on:
Drives fail (enterprise or otherwise) at about 3% per year.
URE do occur but the 1 per 12TB of data read quantity is for SATA drives.
Questionable things:
RAID controllers probably don't read the entire surface during a rebuild but rather just the parity portions of the disk. This means in a RAID5 of 1TB disks. You are reading 1TB of data. Which would likely mean that you have a 1 in 12 chance of getting an URE. This may be an acceptable risk for some.
The assertion that it's the "end of raid 5" is a little severe. A RAID50 mitigates the risk and the functions for calculating your parity data can be extended arbitrarily HOWEVER this is always at the expense of performance.
The rate of disk growth may not follow the proscribed pattern.
Red Herrings(?):
Does the controller take the array offline if it encounters an URE during rebuild or does it continue? This may make change the result from being a system halt to data corruption but neither are unacceptable in the enterprise IMHO.
The good argument underlying "doomsday dates" is that it seems reasonable that drive size is increasing at a much faster rate than these two figures are decreasing. Which means as storage needs grow the size of drives deployed will also likely grow but there is now an extra expense to consider.
Session must have timed out before posting...
Well, telling someone who didn't quite understand something
Strawman again. I'll spell it out for you this time (since it seems that you need to be spoon fed logic too). You are rebutting my requests to go away with "it was simply that I didn't understand". However this is not the rationale for which you were rebuffed. Ergo you are not addressing the argument made.
See: Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138
that they should go away and never come back, that the IT world doesn't need them
Now lets establish proper context. You said that you were educated by us. I simply asked for something in exchange. I honestly don't see the need for people who behave in the way that you did in starting this thread. Chances are whatever good you do in the IT world there are lots of people who do it as well. So I contrast that with what you appear to do bad. Assuming for the moment that you are in the IT field then you seem to have no problem making pronouncements with a weight that is not supported in your knowledge. I don't think the IT world needs this since they are likely to get plenty of what good you do from elsewhere.
emotive phrasing such as "spouting ignorant crap
"crap" is about the closest you get to something emotive there (you're begging the question BTW). Even so there's little wrong with using it for emphasis. Your statements were ignorant. Period.
You should relax a bit. Or stop transferring issues in one area of your life onto people you'll never meet and don't know, which seems to be what is happening here as I find it hard to believe I'm getting you this irate myself.
The fact of the matter is I'm not irate. Not even a little. So I'm not sure how I should relax more. Considering this isn't the only area where you attempt to draw conclusions with little or no information. I'll hope you understand if you're not taken seriously.
A strawman is where I pretend you've made an argument so that I can attack it. You need to check your definitions.
Not really. You argued essentially "What's the problem? People benefited." And I'm saying that the criticism isn't leveled at whatever the outcome is here. A behavior can't be justified by a single result any more than killing randomly can be justified by the fact that you are likely to eventually kill someone who deserves it.
And it's not an argument from information I can't reasonably have.
You argued:
Anyone reading this thread has learnt more from the responses...
You are not in a position to state what people generally have learned from this thread let alone "anyone". QED.
things like 'you forgot problems with implementation from [your list of] human error and physical security' just don't work. Do you think implementation errors are not human error?
Depends on what you mean and in what context. If you mean "system implementation" and you have your technical staff in-house. Then I could see the usage. However I'm not talking about that I'm talking about things like algorithmic implementation. That is to say how an algorithm or process is rendered, i.e. (Code, Hardware,etc..). Having a piece of hardware that incorporates AES may be completely useless if the entropy of the RNG is insufficient. This has nothing to do with the people in your employ or in your security process. This is why I tend to agree with Schneier when he says: "Security isn't something you can BUY but it is something you need to GET". Implying to me that its only by understanding security technologies and principles can you deploy a secure system. So by contrast people who open up a webUI and click the "Secure that" button. Really haven't done anything for security since it's unlikely they are able to quantify the risk they've mitigated.
*looks around*
What? That was it? That was the best you had in my alleged "logical flaws".
So then should I assume that you understand that you're wrong about all the
The author has absolutely no data to back up his claims
Not really.
Just a few tidbits from the original paper. The author looked at the data collected by RAND and found out that since 1968 - 64% of Terrorist Acts Worldwide are Anonymous.
There's a lot of stuff about these organizations being politically diffuse. For example Bin Laden's fatwas throughout the 1990's were primarily aimed at Muslims! It was only in 2001 that he talked about the US. The author cites quotes from members of Al-Qaida criticizing their own lack of direction.
The author also cites Abrams study on the success rate of political change. Which is prety bad..of twenty-eight randomly selected cases the success rate was zero.
Other stuff on how terrorism isn't being used as a "last resort" to political ends.
If terrorism is actually about gaining political change then the people involved are doing so in a very inefficient way. Even to the point of giving up gaining most of their own stated political goals.
So you have two choices here: Terrorists are irrational or they are rationally pursuant of a different goal than political change.
The author supplies a goal that better fits the data (the given data anyway) than the idea of "political change"
At my institution we have no residence so that probably mitigates the issue somewhat. We also aren't a US institution so that probably saves us too since our government hasn't gone retarded in this respect.
Our entire campus is fed by a 100Mb connection. We are pretty close to our ISP's POP which I surmise gets us a comparably awesome rate. The director says he gets a few calls from ISPs per year and all he does is quote our rate to them and they say "Can't do it".
We have only twice taken any kind of action against P2P users.
1) We have an edge device that shapes unencrypted P2P to a cap of 3Mb/s. Poorly. Turning on encryption goes through it like a hot knife through butter.
2) We had a single event which ended up in pretty significant network outages. P2P significantly contributed to exhausting the number of connections in the NAT table (it was kind of funny because the NOC actually brought IBM in to figure it out and they couldn't - I figured it out that afternoon while walking home). So I had the router report people who were using 300 or more connections and kicked them off. Then had the helpdesk refer them to me when they complained. Nice thing about this is that no accusation of P2P use was necessary. All we had to do is say: "You were making 300 connections to external machines. We feel this constitutes abuse of network resources.". When they asked "How could this happen". I'd rattle off a few reasons but when I came to "P2P programs like..." 90% of them started looking sheepish. We stopped doing this after a week or so by that time we had adjusted the NAT box (required a kernel parameter change so we couldn't do it right away).
According to our statistics we never use more than 20% of our connection. That's with virtually no restrictions.
Other institutions that I know of which *do* have a residence use a "bandwidth supply" method. Students have some supply of bandwidth that they can use over some fixed period (3MB/week or whatever) they can use that at an unlimited rate but after the 3MB is used up you are at some very low fixed rate (i.e. 64kb/s).
Why are you so angry?
Why characterize my words as angry?
Anyone reading this thread has learnt more from the responses to my mistake than they would have if I hadn't made it so that's good.
That's technically an argument from information that you can't reasonably have. Not to mention it's a strawman. There's a difference between speaking out against a behavior and speaking out against an event.
You may appreciate a friendlier attitude next time you are wrong about something.
Strawman. This isn't, as stated before about being simply incorrect it's about your being pompous AND ignorant. This is markedly different than simply being wrong.
I was misled by you talking about needing a secure optical cable between the sites.
Your rebuttal would almost be appropriate if I had made an argument like that. I'm not even sure what you mean by "secure optical cable"
I see now that such technology is actually relatively cheap
"Relatively" requires a reference point. Without which your argument is meaningless.
and can in fact use a lot of existing infrastructure.
There are several technical issues in doing this which you conveniently leave out. I have my doubts that you read much more than the wiki entry (which you should have done before your first post). Please excuse the lack of detail here (and I even understand if someone as arrogant as you appear to be would take this as some kind of deceit or evasion on my part) but I'm not interested in perpetuating the cycle of "get spoon-fed information -> Turn around and spew unexamined pontifications -> Claim that this is for the betterment of others"
People have run such key exchanges over 140+ kilometres and have also actually done them through the air for similar distances. So it seems that such technology is certainly viable
Only if you get to drop an important variable from the equation.
if there is a need for it, and there actually have been commercial uses of it so far.
But not what most seem to classify as a general commercial success.
Which brings us back full circle to Bruce Schneier's assumption that other links in the chain are breakable.
Man where did you learn to argue? All links in the chain are breakable - including the QKDS (except in either an idealized state or with current hardware the creation of a chicken-egg problem). Bruce is arguing that the RR is always going to be significantly higher for the other factors impeding general need.
Now we know that the encryption algorithms themselves are pretty strong
No they are strong relative to certain other features and have evolved with care to the risk involved.
which leaves us with human error and physical security.
No. You're leaving out implementation - possibly a few other factors depending on how broad you make "human error".
It seems a bit much that anyone should say that these aspects are always weak therefore improving other links is worthless.
Bruce appears to be saying that key distribution is always going to be relatively low-risk compared to other factors. For example cryptographic strength varies as a function of key length. It's easy to see how this scales as key breaking hardware scales. However it's unclear how to scale human security. Ergo when you go to measure risk your profile tends to be high.
If that were the case why bother with encryption in the first place?
Because you are using the wrong metric. Risk is a combination of a number of factors one of which is frequency. Key exchange (of this kind) by definition is always going to be done far less frequently than message transmission.
Today, secure keys are exchanged by courier. That is in fact less secure than this method of QKD in that it introduces a human element.
Do you mean an IDEAL QKDS or an actual system? If an actual system please provide details as to how the sy
Hardly.
You came, you spouted ignorant crap (making the same mistake multiple times I might add), you then tried to play up this result as education. You were then rightfully compared to someone who makes statements with much higher confidence than they have evidence to back it up. Now what? Face saving with an obtuse quip?
Like I said: The IT world doesn't really need anything resembling you.
Then, if you don't mind doing something in return for your education: Go away and don't come back.
Stupid arrogance is the worst kind. Your postings of half-truths and complete misconceptions may occasionally earn you an education from the school of hard knocks but they seem just if not more likely to make people around you (or say those who mod you to +5) stupider.
It seems like you may have some interest or experience in IT as a career. If so let me give you some anecdotal advice: I personally can't count the times I've had to perform hours of work undoing the damage caused by people like you who make assertions with confidence inversely proportional to their education on the subject. They cost companies money.
Hmmm...I would have thought that QKDS have some way of checking that the information was received properly.
For example before you distribute the key. You encrypt a short message. Then you send it to the recipient to decrypt. If the key was intercepted then the message would be unreadable.
So from my position of ignorance, all I can do is choose what appears to be the most powerful method of encryption based on my reading.
No matter how much you want to think it. A QKDS is still not an encryption method. It's a key distribution method.
dismissing futuristic code breaking methods (based on quantum computing) as being "years away from being practical." I'm young enough that I can be concerned about what the technology will be fifteen years from now.
And if you had read the article closer he claims that key length compensates for Quantum codebreaking. It is also unclear if a sizable quantum computer can even be built. You are again, failing your own criteria since QKDS is not encryption and since quantum codebreaking attacks a cryptosystem regardless of how well or secret the key is. Your attempt at forward thinking has failed.
As I understand it, a QKDS can give me greater confidence in long term security.
Not necessarily. Key distribution is generally one-time. Key use, storage, etc... are all orders of magnitude more frequent in the long run. Ergo again you don't even meet your own criteria. Not only that but actual QKDS devices (as opposed to idealized systems) have their own security flaws (side-band attacks). So the advantage they confer is difficult to measure against traditional systems.
Secondly "greater", "better", "faster" are all terribly ignorant criteria to base a decision on. The true question is does it add *SIGNIFICANTLY* to long term protection. It seems likely that every other major factor outweighs any gains from a QKDS by many orders of magnitude in the long term.
In any case, one aspect of the article is wrong - he says it has no commercial future.
Well if so you haven't made a useful argument to that effect.
Let's break the security market up into two groups. Those who buy based on rational principles and those who don't. Since the positive effect of an ideal QKDS is incredibly small. The percentage of the first group that this is going to be cost-effective for is going to be equally small. So the side that you need to bank on to make this a commercial success is the irrational buyers.
whether only "ignorant" people such as myself consider it worthwhile or not, we'll be buying it
I think it's safe to remove those quotes now.
It's the encryption technology that I can't control / verify.
First of all lets define what is being discussed: Bruce is talking about Quantum Cryptography that is to say a Quantum Key Distribution System.
Now...let's kick your ignorant ass.
A Quantum Key Distribution system isn't really any more under your control or verifiable by you than one that uses SSL. Both can have flawed implementations both are probably way beyond your skill set to verify.
So give me encryption that I can trust
A quantum key distribution system is NOT unbreakable encryption. Period. It simply gives you perfect assurance that your encryption keys are given (and hopefully known) only to the person they are intended.
You still need an encryption algorithm to USE those keys. That algorithm could be the worst one on the planet.
Schneier has no business telling me "your set up is flawed so there's no point in giving you secure encryption."
What he seems to be talking about is relative risk. One of those things I find that people, the media, bloggers and especially you are inordinately bad at evaluating.
Key transmission is not only one of the things we generally don't have to worry about it doesn't even seem to appear on your list of ignorant gripes...
to wit:
It's for me to judge and all I want is to ensure that no weak links come in from outside my control, i.e. a flawed algorithm or technology.
And QKDS doesn't fix a flawed encryption algorithm or a flawed implementation.
You're forgetting how many zombie computers there are in existence that can be used at a hacker's whim to crack such.
What I'm actually doing is addressing the actual article. The software itself boasts a theoretical maximum of 10'000 nodes.
Now if for some reason you're making up a completely different question and trying to apply my answer to it. It's a) Understandable why you're confused and b) weird how you're still wrong.
Assuming we are still talking about brute forcing WPA and we will also assume that this can be done by distributing a packet capture of some adequate size. So they don't all have to be in range of the same AP system.
Kraken is, as far as I know the largest documented botnet. It comes in around 400,000 machines. Now let assume a worst case scenario. All of these machines are capable of 60 000 cracks/second, all of them have four of these GPU cards in them giving them a 100x speedup. And that this process can scale almost perfectly linearly. Given that WPA has a max key length of 256 bits. A brute force attack would take: (((2^256) / 2400000000000)/31536000) years to complete. Google's calculator shows this to be: 1.52989294 * 10^57
So again....I'm not worried.
Weird that this article seems to call down doom for WPA in general and particularly in the enterprise.
a) 100x increase, even using 10,000 machines seems insignificant if you are using the maximum WPA key length employing uppercase, lowercase and punctuation? Even a 30 char password seems to last far longer than most of us will be alive. So at worst all this changes is the minimum key length that can usefully be employed on WPA.
b) In the enterprise in my experience you either use no encrypting and rely on protection at other layers (VPN, SSL, etc) or you use a RADIUS based system that hands out a new key for each session. This seems even less likely to be affected by this. Unless...and I admit I've never checked this...they keys being used have some weakness (short, not very complex, etc...) which, again at worst seems to be a wake-up call for hardware vendors if nothing else.
So wrt wireless this is interesting but hardly industry changing.
I can't get over this sort of story. "We programmed our INCOMPLETE understanding of the cosmos into this simulation, which tells us X, therefore X is more likely."
Anything based on a computer simulation is based on our arbitrarily incomplete knowledge. To base even the least significant conclusions upon it seems laughably irresponsible and unscientific.
This is one of those lines of reasoning that must seem logical to some people but I can't really figure out who.
Ok so nothing can be computed without complete knowledge? That's a weird thing to say since I suspect that even you would agree that it's trivial to write a program that calculates a ballistic trajectory for a specific cannon to a high degree of accuracy but without taking into account every variable. This would be an example of a computer model that is both incomplete and accurate.
I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrarily incomplete" but if I was to guess it would mean that we are unable to tell how much of the observable universe we can model. I.e. the universe might have 847345 fundamental forces (or interactions) but we only have observed four.
However the trick in saying something like "how much" is not in knowing what percentage of these forces you can model but rather knowing what rules carry the most influence. But by lucky chance, in this universe the rules that carry the most influence are also the ones easiest to observe.
This is why modern physics actually can model a great deal of goings on in the universe.
What you seem to be insisting on is an arbitrarily high standard of evidence. i.e. "Prove that there are no other rules in the universe before you conclude anything".
To me anyway this is more unscientific than using a computer model to extrapolate a result from known evidence.
But hey, I was a music major, so what do I know.
Not enough to avoid commenting on that which you know not.
Well Larry is correct that the term is so broad that it's useless. A quick scan across the slashdot responses I see an awful lot defending Google Apps and Gmail.
I'd never have considered using gmail as "Cloud computing" possibly "using a service built on cloud computing" but only if "cloud computing" now means any kind of farmed solution and not a generic kind of clustered processing. Otherwise then there's no reason to even call gmail "Cloud Computing".
The other thing, and perhaps it's just that I generally think of all manner of press (and that goes double for the blogosphere) to be ridiculously under informed but did anyone else see the difference between the actually quotes or references to Stallman and the other article text?
For example:
"But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time."
I could agree to this, currently there is no universal cloud computing platform or API so it could be argued that this is just one proprietary platform being replaced with another. Worse you're replacing something that you used (and this is changing somewhat) to pay once for and own for as long as you wanted to maintain it. To something that you are continually paying for.
Now does that idea extend to any and all web based applications? Of course not but weird thing I see here is that only place you see Gmail mentioned is in the first sentence.
"The concept of using web-based programs like Google's Gmail.."
Then the author goes and talks about cloud computing. Gmail is never used in the rest of the article and nowhere in quotes by Stallman.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that Stallman has gone nuts and/or hates Gmail. Recent things I've read by Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak and Linus Torvalis. Not to mention older things by Theo de Radt convince me that an awful lot of people from the computing world have gone around the bend.
But I'm equally willing to believe that the press is as ill equipped as usual to talk about the things they cover.
If you read what I was replying to again, I want you to see that the person was basically trying to put the onus of proof
on someone who either made (or affirmed) the statement....which is where it is most usefully put
on the OP not to discover the truth, but to try and weaken his argument without giving his own evidence.
Criticizing a statement simply because it lacks support is valid. Those statements which are easily and strongly supported stand and those which are not fall away. This correctly assigns the proper confidence to the idea presented.
Requiring someone have some particular motive at the time is a) Stupid - since it's difficult if not impossible to assess objectively. b) unnecessary - arguments may be fully evaluated without said knowledge.
Speaking of stupid, stupid is chasing someone from article to article with ad hominem in mind.
Well I'm glad you've come to admit this to yourself. It's part of the healing process.
Obviously, you don't like when someone provides sources you have to pay for
I think to understand my criticism you need to read my post :-) I chided you for a) criticizing someone for not reading a Wikipedia article when it didn't add anything to the discussion which implies that you didn't even take the time to click the reference links and b) Not supporting your point.
Besides what kind of reference is: "Here these articles I haven't read prove my point". Unless you are claiming you have read the article in question. In which case please cite the relevant portions.
Try looking at the "data" yourself, without preconditions, and come up with your own projections.
When you do, you will have already failed, since the data provided is not enough to make an accurate projection. This has been proven again and again as projections and simulations falter and fail (As was pointed out by someone above, who I am too lazy to quote).
Argument from anonymous authority. Classic logical flaw.
But do go on, everyone is very impressed by your following of this doomsday cult.
If you projected any harder you could point yourself at a wall and give slideshows.
Again reading is key here. Nowhere did I state my position on anything to do with Climate Science. Just your incredible ignorance of methodology and perhaps implied how you are far more interested in rhetoric than a useful argument.
Of course, you may say that you only want me to prove my point using references
As opposed to taking your word for it?
There's only one problem with that, which is that I am not required to prove the negative.
Here I wrote:
If you want to refute an argument like the one give post the error of the methodology stated, and then show how the meaning inferred in the measurement can be explained through experimental error.
What negative are you being required to prove here? It looks like you are being asked to show that your assertion that isotopic analysis is completely untenable for climate study. Through simple and objective means.
When you have a trend of successful projections year after year, feel free to come back and make your point. ...speaking of unsuccessful projections....you're doing it again. Again support your position about isotopic analysis or siddown. :-)
When I find someone who makes a stupid comment I find it interesting to poke about other threads they comment on....Sometimes what I see enforces that the aforementioned comment was a one-off, a brain fart common to all but here we are again with someone who is without clue.
Pardon me if I'm a little skeptical that between 8:09 AM and 10:14 AM you researched EVERY form of climatic isotopic analysis and determined their experimental error?!
What you don't appear to understand is the idea that ALL measurements are inexact. The question is only to what degree.
If you want to refute an argument like the one give post the error of the methodology stated, and then show how the meaning inferred in the measurement can be explained through experimental error.
If you don't know both the error of the methodology you are dismissing and the values obtained through it. Then you don't really have enough information to defend your position and you should probably "SIT BACK DOWN"
If you have something to add to the article, why don't you just add it, and cite it.
Your first error is that I have something I wish to add to the article. I don't.
What I did have is something I wished to add to your unintelligent commentary. Which was chiding the person for something very similar to what you did.
Instead of complaining about the cited content, try and get it removed.
I'm not complaining about your uninformed statement. I'm correcting it.
Because there have been many published studies on the success of homeschooled children in education vs. their formally-schooled counterparts.
If there is better information than an abstract with results but no error...shouldn't you have taken your own advice and added that to the article?
That aside, if you had cites to actually useful articles. Wouldn't it have been more useful to post them?
Note that I did not say that Homeschooling always produces good results.
...aaaand note that you are responding to a point that was never made.
But it has a better track record than the alternatives.
This has not been supported with useful evidence in this discussion.
Just so you are less confused you did two monumentally stupid things here:
a) Corrected someone on a specific aspect of a subject, directing them to an article which (without cost anyway) had zero to contribute to the subject. Yes, figures without errors are useless in this respect.
b) Making an assertion without useful support.
Instead of trying to fight it, why not try to find out why it is more successful and take lessons from it.
It's like talking to a flat-earther here. I can't "fight" what hasn't been established.
Interesting that you seem to have completely avoided the point about selection bias. If you don't see that as a problem that needs significant attention in any study on homeschooling then I question how you are in any position to suggest what studies someone should read.