Yes. The LAST thing the IPCC did was acknowledge the error.
The first thing it did was ignore the people who reported the error in 2007. And when the criticism got too loud to ignore, the Chairman of the IPCC stepped up to public vilify the critics.
"We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement." [...]
"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago." [...]
Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
And yes, the IPCC claims to have "scientific rigour." Are you aware that their definition of rigor includes citations and conclusions based on so-called "gray literature"? Does that fall within the scope of your definition of scientific rigor?
If not, then you are mistaken about your judgment of the IPCC.
If so, then your definition of scientific rigor, and the IPCC's definition of scientific rigor, reflect a HUGE departure from the conventions of science; you have redefined "scientific rigor" to no longer match its traditional meaning.
The man-in-the-middle-attack would likely be targeted to particular clients of interest, e.g. requests originating from the IP address of a political dissident. For example, a PRC DNS server would watch for a request to resolve 'google.com' coming from a dissident's IP address, and only then would it return the IP address of a rogue web server on which an improperly issued [CNNIC] certificate has been installed. Your scanning strategy presumes that your scanner would be subjected to the problematic behavior; that presumption is optimistic.
Well, yes...by Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, in a public statement released to the news media.
With consideration of that and many other details of this case (and others, as in CRU emails), it is evident that offhand dismissal of opposing perspectives has become a default behavior among many of the most significant participants in climate research and IPCC editorial production. One need only read newspapers to see that the behavior has become endemic in public discourse about climate change.
Your response suggests you wish to understate the pervasiveness of this behavior. Watch out for the train that's about to come through town. Its name will be Integrity, it's going to be loaded with scientists, and they're going to calling for a retreat to the well-established traditions of science that leave the bluster-mouths out at the curb.
Please, as the train comes through, consider that you may be prone to your own brand of denial.
Wait. Let me guess. Your question intrigues you because it is predicated on an assumption that the typical libertarian believes in no governmental regulation of individual behavior.
To that, I would suggest that you avoid posting to Slashdot after you've been smoking the weed.
Per this article, here's how IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri responded in November to an Indian minister who challenged the Himalayan glacier changes:
Pachauri [...] told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."
[...]
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".
"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."
[...] Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
I am a person who believes in anthropogenic global warming. I am often called a "denier" even though the people who call me that are unable to specify what it is that I deny. I understand very well the common meaning of the term "denier": it is one who dares to challenge the propriety of ANYTHING that supports AGW theory; it has nothing to do with denial. It is a term used as such by the uninformed throngs, and by IPCC Chairman Pachauri. It is a despicable method by which to vilify critical thinkers, to dismiss their critical questions, and to thereby erode the scientific basis of the public debate.
While some of the points are informative, your question (and intimation) is a good one. While it is plausible that the U.S. can summon the political will and make some excuse to "cancel" its debt to China, there's a foolishly idealistic assumption that we could do so while containing the devaluation to only "Chinese-held" securities. There are a lot of reasons why that is implausible. First, I defy people to sufficiently define a "China-owned T-Bill" such that, when said T-Bill is submitted for redemption, we declare it worthless (hint: what if said T-Bill is presented for redemption by a British bank? remember...these are globally marketable securities). Second, the sanctity of debt and capital have historically transcended politics, i.e. IOU means "I OWE YOU", not "I OWE YOU EXCEPT ______ (fill in the blank)". Posters here are foolish to think we can move from such sanctity of debt to sanctity "excepting China", tell our European "partners" (who are also "partners" with China) that this is a China-only issue, and to believe that Europeans (or anybody else) are foolish enough to ignore that this shift rips the underpinnings of international finance and raises serious questions as to the trustworthiness of U.S. debt commitments. All parties should properly infer that today the U.S. comes to screw China, and tomorrow it comes to screw whom?
On can do no screwing without one getting screwed. THAT is the force and effect of global finance today.
In my experience, I think there's something to what you say. The DD-WRT software is quite capable, but the CPUs in consumer routers are relatively slow and get bogged down when you fire up a bunch of chatty sessions, a good load of firewall rules, and try to pound data through too. Add monitoring of the router (which DD-WRT doesn't do much to support) and it doesn't take much to make the router start lagging and gasping for air. I've experienced such limitations in an office environment.
Artificial scarcity doesn't work. Period. If only they could learn this.
The scarcity is not artificial. It's real. The studio, as the sole licensor of the content, can and does restrict supply. The scarcity is only artificial for people who practice piracy. For the rest of us, it's quite real, and for some of us, it's worth paying the additional premium for immediate gratification. The studios will only exploit this to the point that it *does* increase profit.
The studios are simply exploiting a profit opportunity that you incorrectly dismiss out of hand.
Another dastardly country is about to exploit its natural resources to its own advantage...what if other countries follow suit???!!! I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN LIVE THAT WAY, BATMAN!!!
The recipe is as you describe. But history has not delivered the disasters of which you speak. And that has not been simply a matter of luck.
It is apparent that SJW, as with pretty much all "alternative remedies" [in the U.S.], is fairly benign as dispensed despite the extremely wide variations in dosage (intentional or otherwise). This "margin of safety" is an implicit byproduct of several factors. Manufacturers, as people and profiteers, are disinclined to make products that harm their customers. As well, the FDA does watch and wait to step in where toxicity or significant adverse reactions ensue (e.g. as with ephedra). And civil litigation is ably punitive where regulation fails.
(Note that SJW appears to be ineffective in treatment of severe depression, and "better than placebo" in treating mild depression. Also do note that many/most controlled medications present risks of significant adverse reactions that are not predictable in individual cases, so it is incumbent upon all consumers to monitor actual effects and adjust usage as appropriate. In this regard, almost all substances can be described as being a "formula for disaster" given your rather loose standard for declaring so.)
In my opinion, the significant problem of "alternative remedies" is their lack of demonstrated efficacy vis-a-vis the assertions under which they are explicitly or implicitly marketed. I am being kind here...there is significant informal evidence (and some formal evidence) that suggests that these substances are overwhelmingly lacking in efficacy.
I think it is unhelpful and essentially misleading to describe "alternative remedies" as being dangerous. Such a claim is similar to describing influenza vaccines as being dangerous. The risks in both cases appear to be quite low, and attempts to focus attention on their dangers only serves to divert attention away from much more significant factors to be considered.
Why avoid SJW? Answer #1, which is probably incorrect: because it has a significant chance of harming you. Answer #2, which is probably correct: because it is unlikely to be of significant benefit in treatment of depression.
A proven psychoactive substance with no regulation or standardization? That's a recipe for disaster.
While it may not be a recipe for controlled therapy, the widespread anecdotal histories of usage of uncontrolled substances such as SJW clearly demonstrate that they are not a "recipe for disaster." You would better serve the cause of medicine if you encouraged the isolation of the active ingredient(s) in SJW and advancement of dosing/administration of said ingredient(s), rather than to attack its weakness with your own brand of FUD.
Forgive me for my delay...I had to summon the will to reply.
Your points are rife with invalid assumptions about my points and the applicability of your analogies/anecdotes. For example, your closing remark:
Your company's failure to take its duty to the law seriously only makes it easier for these criminals to ply their trade. Sloppy decision. If I knew enough to turn your company in, I would do so in a heartbeat.
Whatever unlawful act you imply my company to have done here is, quite simply, of your convenient imagination. Your defense is no more than a blustery, uninformed, egotistical offense. Do you really consider your guidance to be helpful to a SMALL merchant who falls victim to an ALLEGED DDoS?
You are an attorney. I am a technician. Riddle me this: how many lawyers should it have taken me to address a DDoS attack?
I find your perspective to be way out at the periphery of the problem. You sound like a D.C. lawyer, or of some similar culture where one might develop the false belief that government is playing a large role in mitigation of internet technical risks. Keep chewing on that idea while I continue to adjust and harden my perimeter defenses, widen my trustful connections, heed good practices, and employ other techniques needed to keep DDoS risks at acceptable levels. I have many additional opportunities yet available to mitigate my risks such that I don't foresee any time in the next few years that your strategies will provide a competitive bang for my company's buck. Your strategies do, however, offer a reasonable return on lawyer's (or a bureaucrat's) investment.
I/my company was recently a DDoS attack target. We were only willing to employ technical counter-measures; we had/have no willingness to appease the attacker. Our strategy was (and is) very expensive for us. But so far, we survive (and grow).
As long as there are people around who think like you, there will be attackers who will exploit your strategy, and there will be collateral victims such as my company. Fortunately, we're unprofitable feed for the attackers so they don't dwell too long on us, and instead make their beds with more "logical" thinkers such as yourself. Attackers are smart and adaptable that way.
Do you think the traditional protection racket, as your chosen model, is sufficiently congruent to this case as to make a good argument for a website operator to pay a DoS attacker to not attack again?
Let me re-phrase my question. Would YOU pay a [purported] DoS attacker to not attack again? (I need to differentiate here between that which you think a smart person such as yourself should do, as opposed to what you think is appropriate for the many stupid people such as myself.)
But the only protection you can buy from them is their "commitment" to not attack again. That doesn't protect you from another attacker launching an attack, and if you're one who pays, then I'd say you've improved your chance of that.
It seems that a technical defense is your only real defense, and "paid protection" is the resort of tomorrow's road kill.
Watch out about calling it "stealing." That usually gets you a lecture about why it's not the same as stealing (i.e. there's no taking/depriving of an object/material).
There is, however, a breach of contract behind every instance of copyright infringement. So congratulations to all the non-thieves...their behaviors still depend on, and capitalize on, somebody screwing somebody else.
A proud generation? The virtues of good law are likely to prevail. May vote is for the party of greatest integrity. The GP's argument is weak in ethics, and strong only in the everybody-is-doing-it way...the same underlying strength as we saw behind the dot-com bubble and sub-prime mortgage borrowing/lending.
But you don't take the compile time away, just like you don't take the time it takes the developer to copy the files to the webserver or set the php config options.
But with that kind of potential savings, you *can* take compile time away, very cost effectively, by installing Mod_Perl to cache compiled Perl code (and Zend Platform or others for doing the same with PHP code).
And I do hope you're not spending much time copying files or setting your php config options. If you are, then something is amiss (you might need some well-crafted scripts and split operating environments).
Of course, I'm sure you've been on many decade long aerospace engineering projects to know how it should work.
You imply that one has to have aerospace experience to understand the politics of congressional appropriations.
The GP's point is quite correct with respect to almost all congressman and the spending programs that affect their districts. Once established, they bullishly cling to these appropriations with little attention to their underlying specifics. Though it may not be pork to you, it is pork to them and they are unashamed of the vigor with which they bring home the bacon.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, the IPCC claims to have "scientific rigour." Are you aware that their definition of rigor includes citations and conclusions based on so-called "gray literature"? Does that fall within the scope of your definition of scientific rigor?
The man-in-the-middle-attack would likely be targeted to particular clients of interest, e.g. requests originating from the IP address of a political dissident. For example, a PRC DNS server would watch for a request to resolve 'google.com' coming from a dissident's IP address, and only then would it return the IP address of a rogue web server on which an improperly issued [CNNIC] certificate has been installed. Your scanning strategy presumes that your scanner would be subjected to the problematic behavior; that presumption is optimistic.
Well, yes...by Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, in a public statement released to the news media.
With consideration of that and many other details of this case (and others, as in CRU emails), it is evident that offhand dismissal of opposing perspectives has become a default behavior among many of the most significant participants in climate research and IPCC editorial production. One need only read newspapers to see that the behavior has become endemic in public discourse about climate change.
Your response suggests you wish to understate the pervasiveness of this behavior. Watch out for the train that's about to come through town. Its name will be Integrity, it's going to be loaded with scientists, and they're going to calling for a retreat to the well-established traditions of science that leave the bluster-mouths out at the curb.
Please, as the train comes through, consider that you may be prone to your own brand of denial.
Wait. Let me guess. Your question intrigues you because it is predicated on an assumption that the typical libertarian believes in no governmental regulation of individual behavior.
To that, I would suggest that you avoid posting to Slashdot after you've been smoking the weed.
You might read my post here
You might read my post here
I am a person who believes in anthropogenic global warming. I am often called a "denier" even though the people who call me that are unable to specify what it is that I deny. I understand very well the common meaning of the term "denier": it is one who dares to challenge the propriety of ANYTHING that supports AGW theory; it has nothing to do with denial. It is a term used as such by the uninformed throngs, and by IPCC Chairman Pachauri. It is a despicable method by which to vilify critical thinkers, to dismiss their critical questions, and to thereby erode the scientific basis of the public debate.
While some of the points are informative, your question (and intimation) is a good one. While it is plausible that the U.S. can summon the political will and make some excuse to "cancel" its debt to China, there's a foolishly idealistic assumption that we could do so while containing the devaluation to only "Chinese-held" securities. There are a lot of reasons why that is implausible. First, I defy people to sufficiently define a "China-owned T-Bill" such that, when said T-Bill is submitted for redemption, we declare it worthless (hint: what if said T-Bill is presented for redemption by a British bank? remember...these are globally marketable securities). Second, the sanctity of debt and capital have historically transcended politics, i.e. IOU means "I OWE YOU", not "I OWE YOU EXCEPT ______ (fill in the blank)". Posters here are foolish to think we can move from such sanctity of debt to sanctity "excepting China", tell our European "partners" (who are also "partners" with China) that this is a China-only issue, and to believe that Europeans (or anybody else) are foolish enough to ignore that this shift rips the underpinnings of international finance and raises serious questions as to the trustworthiness of U.S. debt commitments. All parties should properly infer that today the U.S. comes to screw China, and tomorrow it comes to screw whom?
On can do no screwing without one getting screwed. THAT is the force and effect of global finance today.
In my experience, I think there's something to what you say. The DD-WRT software is quite capable, but the CPUs in consumer routers are relatively slow and get bogged down when you fire up a bunch of chatty sessions, a good load of firewall rules, and try to pound data through too. Add monitoring of the router (which DD-WRT doesn't do much to support) and it doesn't take much to make the router start lagging and gasping for air. I've experienced such limitations in an office environment.
Suing it is easy. Getting it to show up at court is much harder.
And the wife...such a beach.
The scarcity is not artificial. It's real. The studio, as the sole licensor of the content, can and does restrict supply. The scarcity is only artificial for people who practice piracy. For the rest of us, it's quite real, and for some of us, it's worth paying the additional premium for immediate gratification. The studios will only exploit this to the point that it *does* increase profit.
The studios are simply exploiting a profit opportunity that you incorrectly dismiss out of hand.
Another dastardly country is about to exploit its natural resources to its own advantage...what if other countries follow suit???!!! I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN LIVE THAT WAY, BATMAN!!!
The recipe is as you describe. But history has not delivered the disasters of which you speak. And that has not been simply a matter of luck.
It is apparent that SJW, as with pretty much all "alternative remedies" [in the U.S.], is fairly benign as dispensed despite the extremely wide variations in dosage (intentional or otherwise). This "margin of safety" is an implicit byproduct of several factors. Manufacturers, as people and profiteers, are disinclined to make products that harm their customers. As well, the FDA does watch and wait to step in where toxicity or significant adverse reactions ensue (e.g. as with ephedra). And civil litigation is ably punitive where regulation fails.
(Note that SJW appears to be ineffective in treatment of severe depression, and "better than placebo" in treating mild depression. Also do note that many/most controlled medications present risks of significant adverse reactions that are not predictable in individual cases, so it is incumbent upon all consumers to monitor actual effects and adjust usage as appropriate. In this regard, almost all substances can be described as being a "formula for disaster" given your rather loose standard for declaring so.)
In my opinion, the significant problem of "alternative remedies" is their lack of demonstrated efficacy vis-a-vis the assertions under which they are explicitly or implicitly marketed. I am being kind here...there is significant informal evidence (and some formal evidence) that suggests that these substances are overwhelmingly lacking in efficacy.
I think it is unhelpful and essentially misleading to describe "alternative remedies" as being dangerous. Such a claim is similar to describing influenza vaccines as being dangerous. The risks in both cases appear to be quite low, and attempts to focus attention on their dangers only serves to divert attention away from much more significant factors to be considered.
Why avoid SJW? Answer #1, which is probably incorrect: because it has a significant chance of harming you. Answer #2, which is probably correct: because it is unlikely to be of significant benefit in treatment of depression.
I agree with the "unregulated and unstandardized" part. But the "formula for disaster" part is B.S.
And, no, I don't take your B.S. personally (i.e. as some kind of reflection on me). I simply disagree with that part. Nothing personal.
While it may not be a recipe for controlled therapy, the widespread anecdotal histories of usage of uncontrolled substances such as SJW clearly demonstrate that they are not a "recipe for disaster." You would better serve the cause of medicine if you encouraged the isolation of the active ingredient(s) in SJW and advancement of dosing/administration of said ingredient(s), rather than to attack its weakness with your own brand of FUD.
Thanks. Reading now.
Forgive me for my delay...I had to summon the will to reply.
Your points are rife with invalid assumptions about my points and the applicability of your analogies/anecdotes. For example, your closing remark:
Whatever unlawful act you imply my company to have done here is, quite simply, of your convenient imagination. Your defense is no more than a blustery, uninformed, egotistical offense. Do you really consider your guidance to be helpful to a SMALL merchant who falls victim to an ALLEGED DDoS?
You are an attorney. I am a technician. Riddle me this: how many lawyers should it have taken me to address a DDoS attack?
I find your perspective to be way out at the periphery of the problem. You sound like a D.C. lawyer, or of some similar culture where one might develop the false belief that government is playing a large role in mitigation of internet technical risks. Keep chewing on that idea while I continue to adjust and harden my perimeter defenses, widen my trustful connections, heed good practices, and employ other techniques needed to keep DDoS risks at acceptable levels. I have many additional opportunities yet available to mitigate my risks such that I don't foresee any time in the next few years that your strategies will provide a competitive bang for my company's buck. Your strategies do, however, offer a reasonable return on lawyer's (or a bureaucrat's) investment.
Interesting choice of strategies.
I/my company was recently a DDoS attack target. We were only willing to employ technical counter-measures; we had/have no willingness to appease the attacker. Our strategy was (and is) very expensive for us. But so far, we survive (and grow).
As long as there are people around who think like you, there will be attackers who will exploit your strategy, and there will be collateral victims such as my company. Fortunately, we're unprofitable feed for the attackers so they don't dwell too long on us, and instead make their beds with more "logical" thinkers such as yourself. Attackers are smart and adaptable that way.
Would YOU pay a [purported] DoS attacker to not attack again?
Thanks for explaining that.
Do you think the traditional protection racket, as your chosen model, is sufficiently congruent to this case as to make a good argument for a website operator to pay a DoS attacker to not attack again?
Let me re-phrase my question. Would YOU pay a [purported] DoS attacker to not attack again? (I need to differentiate here between that which you think a smart person such as yourself should do, as opposed to what you think is appropriate for the many stupid people such as myself.)
Protection from the protector, *and* protection from his competitors (read: "territorial dominance").
But the only protection you can buy from them is their "commitment" to not attack again. That doesn't protect you from another attacker launching an attack, and if you're one who pays, then I'd say you've improved your chance of that.
It seems that a technical defense is your only real defense, and "paid protection" is the resort of tomorrow's road kill.
Watch out about calling it "stealing." That usually gets you a lecture about why it's not the same as stealing (i.e. there's no taking/depriving of an object/material).
There is, however, a breach of contract behind every instance of copyright infringement. So congratulations to all the non-thieves...their behaviors still depend on, and capitalize on, somebody screwing somebody else.
A proud generation? The virtues of good law are likely to prevail. May vote is for the party of greatest integrity. The GP's argument is weak in ethics, and strong only in the everybody-is-doing-it way...the same underlying strength as we saw behind the dot-com bubble and sub-prime mortgage borrowing/lending.
Yes, too often the many are wrong.
But with that kind of potential savings, you *can* take compile time away, very cost effectively, by installing Mod_Perl to cache compiled Perl code (and Zend Platform or others for doing the same with PHP code).
And I do hope you're not spending much time copying files or setting your php config options. If you are, then something is amiss (you might need some well-crafted scripts and split operating environments).
You imply that one has to have aerospace experience to understand the politics of congressional appropriations.
The GP's point is quite correct with respect to almost all congressman and the spending programs that affect their districts. Once established, they bullishly cling to these appropriations with little attention to their underlying specifics. Though it may not be pork to you, it is pork to them and they are unashamed of the vigor with which they bring home the bacon.