Yes and yes (yes, Realclimate again, but try clicking the links and reading this time).
I click on them, and then I actually read them.
#1 cites Mann. Thats right, its cites Mann. Do you even comprehend the stupidity of using Mann to validate Mann? Why do you keep doing it.
#2 shows a graph, with something similar to Mann's stick produced by Oerlemans, Moberg, and Esper. Before I roast your citation, I am going to point out that Moberg has co-authored at least 8 papers with Jones. Now on with the show.
Why doesnt Mann's version of the graph (hosted by Mann and used in defense of Mann) look anything like NASA's version(hosted by NASA and used to illustrate whats in the paper?)
No he doesnt. He just claims to. Examine what he cites.
His first citation (myth #0) is to an IPCC Assessment Report. As you may or may not know, the IPCC does not do peer reviewed studies. The IPCC produces what are called Assessment Reports where they cite peer reviewed studies. In this case, they cite Mann.
His second citation (myth #1) links to his own site, again, and that page cites himself.
His third citation (myth #2) links to a hit piece attacking the messanger.
His fourth citation (also myth #2) links to very unhockey-like stuff.
His fifth and sixth citations (myth #3) links to his own site again.
This goes on and on.
One last time. Care to cite an independent study (one that does not use Mann's or Briffa's data) that produces a hockey sticks? Can you actually do that?
Does it at all trouble you that the page you linked to which defends Mann's work in no way mentions that it was in fact written by Mann and that all the comments are moderated by Mann?
Does it at all trouble you that additionally the pages text attempts to appear to be an independent work? Does that really not bother you?
The FBI without a doubt does set up sting sites and baits CP downloaders, but why would they disguise it as fake adult porn?
I suspect that the way most P2P file sharing works is that the filename is not part of the hash, so many files with different filenames but the same content can appear as the same file, and the filename displayed is what came first, or maybe last, in the search. Think about how 'find more of..' must work. It does a direct hash search, not a filename string matching search.
So kiddie porn searcher finds and downloads FBI kiddie porn, and then RENAMES IT, then innocent guy searching innocently and gets hits with that name.. but there is only one source of the file.. so then he hits "Find more.." and all the FBI sources get added as peers with the same file as well.
More to the point, we want the data that Jones had, and used.
He deleted a lot of it on purpose. The whole "to save space" claim is bullshit, since (for example) the ENTIRE European surface station database, thats every day of every year.. IN ASCII, is less than 500 megs.
I want the data Jones used. Really.
Please explain why it was deleted, and also explain why you asked others to ALSO delete it.
Does anyone really believe that a real attempt at fraud would be blatantly labeled in the code?
When they had no intention of ever releasing it to the public, yes I do.
Jones deleted code and data ON PURPOSE so that the public would never see it, and ASKED OTHERS to do the same. Thats all right there in the emails. There is no context to understand in THOSE emails. Jones also told others in emails not to worry about FOI requests because the man in charge, and I quote, "knows what to do."
He also said he would delete EVEN MORE stuff, rather than let McIntyre get his hands on it, in those emails. You want to know why? Because McIntyre has made a name for himself correcting these people. He's done it more than a few times, and on one occasion NASA ITSELF thanked McIntyre publicly for his careful attention to detail that caught Hansen's bad data.
..and prior to this event, several years back, there was an absent minded climate scientist (Mann) who put his data up on a public FTP because of a request by the Nature journal in response to mistakes found in his work, and one of the folders was named CENSORED DATA, and contained data that didnt fit with the theory. Specifically this data was on tree ring's correlation with temperature, proving that Mann had KNOWN that tree rings were not a good proxy of temperature, but instead of working on the problem of why tree rings dont correlate well with temperature.. he simply only kept datasets that didn't conflict with the theory that tree rings correlate with temperature. To this day, Mann is allowed to use this bullshit technique of selective data.
So yes.. I really do believe that these folks really didn't think that the public will ever see their code or data. They certainly made many extensive and coordinated efforts to prevent the public from seeing it.
The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data.
This has nothing to do with the data being 'properly calibrated' and everything to do with the faulty assumption that ring width strong correlates with temperature, which is the assumption they use for pre-1960 data. They sold you another lie to explain the first, my friend.
Tree ring width correlates strongly with precipitation, not temperature. Plenty of REAL peer reviewed studies to back this up, along with validated experimental evidence (you know, that whole scientific method shit that Mann doesnt use)
Furthermore, many critics of Mann et al. have ignored the fact that this was a single line of data turning a blind eye to the numerous other data sets and proxies that support the same conclusions.
Which data sets are those? Seriously. Which? Show my a hockey stick that does not use Mann's or Briffa's data. Do it now.
Are you kidding me? This movie isnt selling theaters out.
I suspect that getting the theater for yourself for this movie involves the simple phrase "I'll take 1 ticket for that crappy assed movie.. you know the one"
File Systems are in the software domain. If you arent getting good data (what was written) off the drive, the File System ideally shouldn't be able to do any better than the hardware did with the data. Of course, in reality the hardware uses a fixed redundancy model that offers less reliability than some people like. The danger of software-based solutions is that it allows hardware manufacturers to offer even less redundancy, or even NO redundancy at all, causing a need for even MORE software based redundancy.
The ideal solution is to make sure the data is good at every step, rather than allow the device (or transmission medium) to consider that bad data is being good data. With ZFS or any other File System solution, the device wont know that the data is bad.. and thats bad.
You are describing RAR being used because the transmission medium itself isn't even close to reliable. Specifically, the storage location itself has bad data because there was no attempt to make sure it was exactly the same as the original source.
Information theory as it applies to data redundancy is pretty much completely solved, and has been for many decades (since Shannon, really.) The optimal amount of redundancy needed to achieve a specific low (target) error rate depends on the reliability of the mediums involved. The optimal amount of redundancy to achieve the target rate for data-over-usenet is different (much larger) than the optimal amount of redundancy needed for other typical transmission/storage mediums.
The TL;DR versions is: There isn't a single fixed amount of redundancy suitable for all tasks.
Most modern compression formats will not tolerate any errors. With LZ a single bit error could propagate over a long expanse of the uncompressed output, while with Arithmetic encoding the remainder of the file following the single bit error will be completely unrecoverable.
Pretty much only the prefix-code style compression schemes (Huffman for one) will isolate errors to short sgements, and then only if the compressor is not of the adaptive variety.
We are talking about a DVR. It only needs to play back what it recorded.
If you want to play arbitrary video files, there are plenty of awesome solutions (both open and proprietary) for that, and none of the awesome ones have any DVR functionality.
A mutex (MUTually EXclusive) is a software methodology in which one thread or process can (usually temporarily) lock a resource (such as a memory location) so that another thread or process may not access it.
It is most often required because resources are normally not 'atomic.' For instance, a string in memory is made up of many machine words and a CPU cannot read or write multiple machine word values in one operation. The danger is that while one CPU is writing to such a non-atomic collection of values, another might be trying to read from (or write to) it.. creating a situation where that second process reads part of the old data and part of the new data (essentially garbage data.)
So the idea of a MUTEX is born, in which an atomic value is leveraged to allow a thread to reserve such resources, signaling others (if they respect the MUTEX as well) to wait their turn.
It has been leaked that Larrabee will include many (8 or more) x86 "light" cores. Some instructions from the x86 gone, but most still available (including a wider SSE.)
Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others.
emails between those "completely independent groups" asking them to delete their emails, and their data.
emails between those "completely independent groups" asking them to conspire against a peer reviewed journal.
emails between those "completely independent groups" assuringly stating that certain people know what to say in response to FOI requests.
many "peer reviewed" papers co-authored by Jones and the leads of these "completely independent groups."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and yes (yes, Realclimate again, but try clicking the links and reading this time).
I click on them, and then I actually read them.
#1 cites Mann. Thats right, its cites Mann. Do you even comprehend the stupidity of using Mann to validate Mann? Why do you keep doing it.
#2 shows a graph, with something similar to Mann's stick produced by Oerlemans, Moberg, and Esper. Before I roast your citation, I am going to point out that Moberg has co-authored at least 8 papers with Jones. Now on with the show.
This is the RealClimate version of Oerlemans graph.
But this is NASA's version of the graph. AND THEY PROVIDE THE ACTUAL DATA
Why doesnt Mann's version of the graph (hosted by Mann and used in defense of Mann) look anything like NASA's version(hosted by NASA and used to illustrate whats in the paper?)
You really are a sucker.
No. The science concerns me, not your ad hominems.
What science has Mann done? He must have done some experiments, you know.. that whole scientific method thing.. right?
[citation needed for your claims that Mann does science]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.control.clientsize.aspx
No he doesnt. He just claims to. Examine what he cites.
His first citation (myth #0) is to an IPCC Assessment Report. As you may or may not know, the IPCC does not do peer reviewed studies. The IPCC produces what are called Assessment Reports where they cite peer reviewed studies. In this case, they cite Mann.
His second citation (myth #1) links to his own site, again, and that page cites himself.
His third citation (myth #2) links to a hit piece attacking the messanger.
His fourth citation (also myth #2) links to very unhockey-like stuff.
His fifth and sixth citations (myth #3) links to his own site again.
This goes on and on.
One last time. Care to cite an independent study (one that does not use Mann's or Briffa's data) that produces a hockey sticks? Can you actually do that?
Also,
Does it at all trouble you that the page you linked to which defends Mann's work in no way mentions that it was in fact written by Mann and that all the comments are moderated by Mann?
Does it at all trouble you that additionally the pages text attempts to appear to be an independent work? Does that really not bother you?
This straw man is old and has been debunked so often it's silly. Realclimate deals with it on their page Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick":
Mann, the creator of the hockey stick graph, owns and operates that site.
Do you have any independent stuff, like I had asked for? No? Thanks.
The FBI without a doubt does set up sting sites and baits CP downloaders, but why would they disguise it as fake adult porn?
I suspect that the way most P2P file sharing works is that the filename is not part of the hash, so many files with different filenames but the same content can appear as the same file, and the filename displayed is what came first, or maybe last, in the search. Think about how 'find more of..' must work. It does a direct hash search, not a filename string matching search.
So kiddie porn searcher finds and downloads FBI kiddie porn, and then RENAMES IT, then innocent guy searching innocently and gets hits with that name.. but there is only one source of the file.. so then he hits "Find more.." and all the FBI sources get added as peers with the same file as well.
More to the point, we want the data that Jones had, and used.
He deleted a lot of it on purpose. The whole "to save space" claim is bullshit, since (for example) the ENTIRE European surface station database, thats every day of every year.. IN ASCII, is less than 500 megs.
I want the data Jones used. Really.
Please explain why it was deleted, and also explain why you asked others to ALSO delete it.
Does anyone really believe that a real attempt at fraud would be blatantly labeled in the code?
When they had no intention of ever releasing it to the public, yes I do.
..and prior to this event, several years back, there was an absent minded climate scientist (Mann) who put his data up on a public FTP because of a request by the Nature journal in response to mistakes found in his work, and one of the folders was named CENSORED DATA, and contained data that didnt fit with the theory. Specifically this data was on tree ring's correlation with temperature, proving that Mann had KNOWN that tree rings were not a good proxy of temperature, but instead of working on the problem of why tree rings dont correlate well with temperature.. he simply only kept datasets that didn't conflict with the theory that tree rings correlate with temperature. To this day, Mann is allowed to use this bullshit technique of selective data.
Jones deleted code and data ON PURPOSE so that the public would never see it, and ASKED OTHERS to do the same. Thats all right there in the emails. There is no context to understand in THOSE emails. Jones also told others in emails not to worry about FOI requests because the man in charge, and I quote, "knows what to do."
He also said he would delete EVEN MORE stuff, rather than let McIntyre get his hands on it, in those emails. You want to know why? Because McIntyre has made a name for himself correcting these people. He's done it more than a few times, and on one occasion NASA ITSELF thanked McIntyre publicly for his careful attention to detail that caught Hansen's bad data.
So yes.. I really do believe that these folks really didn't think that the public will ever see their code or data. They certainly made many extensive and coordinated efforts to prevent the public from seeing it.
The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data.
This has nothing to do with the data being 'properly calibrated' and everything to do with the faulty assumption that ring width strong correlates with temperature, which is the assumption they use for pre-1960 data. They sold you another lie to explain the first, my friend.
Tree ring width correlates strongly with precipitation, not temperature. Plenty of REAL peer reviewed studies to back this up, along with validated experimental evidence (you know, that whole scientific method shit that Mann doesnt use)
Furthermore, many critics of Mann et al. have ignored the fact that this was a single line of data turning a blind eye to the numerous other data sets and proxies that support the same conclusions.
Which data sets are those? Seriously. Which? Show my a hockey stick that does not use Mann's or Briffa's data. Do it now.
Are you kidding me? This movie isnt selling theaters out.
I suspect that getting the theater for yourself for this movie involves the simple phrase "I'll take 1 ticket for that crappy assed movie.. you know the one"
File Systems are in the software domain. If you arent getting good data (what was written) off the drive, the File System ideally shouldn't be able to do any better than the hardware did with the data. Of course, in reality the hardware uses a fixed redundancy model that offers less reliability than some people like. The danger of software-based solutions is that it allows hardware manufacturers to offer even less redundancy, or even NO redundancy at all, causing a need for even MORE software based redundancy.
The ideal solution is to make sure the data is good at every step, rather than allow the device (or transmission medium) to consider that bad data is being good data. With ZFS or any other File System solution, the device wont know that the data is bad.. and thats bad.
You are describing RAR being used because the transmission medium itself isn't even close to reliable. Specifically, the storage location itself has bad data because there was no attempt to make sure it was exactly the same as the original source.
Information theory as it applies to data redundancy is pretty much completely solved, and has been for many decades (since Shannon, really.) The optimal amount of redundancy needed to achieve a specific low (target) error rate depends on the reliability of the mediums involved. The optimal amount of redundancy to achieve the target rate for data-over-usenet is different (much larger) than the optimal amount of redundancy needed for other typical transmission/storage mediums.
The TL;DR versions is: There isn't a single fixed amount of redundancy suitable for all tasks.
What we are talking about here is how to add more redundancy on the software level.. but honestly..
...why not do it at the hardware level where there is already redundancy, and cant be fucked up by an additional error vector?
Most modern compression formats will not tolerate any errors. With LZ a single bit error could propagate over a long expanse of the uncompressed output, while with Arithmetic encoding the remainder of the file following the single bit error will be completely unrecoverable.
Pretty much only the prefix-code style compression schemes (Huffman for one) will isolate errors to short sgements, and then only if the compressor is not of the adaptive variety.
Do you realize that he basically just described gasoline?
8 parts carbon and 18 parts hydrogen. Thats your average gasoline.
Are you suggesting that the current generation of high tech batteries isnt manufactured by the fuckload?
Hint: Cell Phones
This.
..and no worrying about driver support or spyware.
Kinko's and/or Staples for all your occasional printing needs. For less than the cost of an ink cart, you get an entire lifetime of printing service.
Seriously.
Arbitrary video files?
We are talking about a DVR. It only needs to play back what it recorded.
If you want to play arbitrary video files, there are plenty of awesome solutions (both open and proprietary) for that, and none of the awesome ones have any DVR functionality.
[FC]I am Jacks bias detector.[/FC]
The terible thing about existing completely open and flexible system is that you have to route around their quirks with other tools.
There. Fixed that for you.
[FC]I am Jacks complete lack of tolerance.[/FC]
A mutex (MUTually EXclusive) is a software methodology in which one thread or process can (usually temporarily) lock a resource (such as a memory location) so that another thread or process may not access it.
It is most often required because resources are normally not 'atomic.' For instance, a string in memory is made up of many machine words and a CPU cannot read or write multiple machine word values in one operation. The danger is that while one CPU is writing to such a non-atomic collection of values, another might be trying to read from (or write to) it.. creating a situation where that second process reads part of the old data and part of the new data (essentially garbage data.)
So the idea of a MUTEX is born, in which an atomic value is leveraged to allow a thread to reserve such resources, signaling others (if they respect the MUTEX as well) to wait their turn.
It has been leaked that Larrabee will include many (8 or more) x86 "light" cores. Some instructions from the x86 gone, but most still available (including a wider SSE.)
Do you not know the length of time between XP and Vista?
Seriously. Do you even think about what you say before you say it?
This is some new definition of the term Free Content that I wasn't previously aware of.
The mod only suspected you were a troll, but you just proved it.
Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others.
emails between those "completely independent groups" asking them to delete their emails, and their data.
emails between those "completely independent groups" asking them to conspire against a peer reviewed journal.
emails between those "completely independent groups" assuringly stating that certain people know what to say in response to FOI requests.
many "peer reviewed" papers co-authored by Jones and the leads of these "completely independent groups."
completely independent my fucking ass.