BP for example would immediately hire assassins to murder all clean energy researchers.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/1555243/Oil-Companies-Patent-Trolling-Biofuel-Production
But I do appreciate the basic sentiment, that one accomplishment should not become a perpetual free ride. I would just err on the side of protecting the rights of individual innovators against work that could be slanderous, or laws that make murder a good investment.
How about, only individual humans can own intellectual property, not corporations or any other collectives? I think corporate "intellectual" property is a much more important problem than squabbles among artists of various kinds.
That's too absurd to be mistaken for a real event. The problem is with writing untrue things that could reasonably be interpreted as assertions of fact.
I mean, what makes you think that *you* have the right to include 'real' people into your fake fictional works ?
Indeed. Mixing fact and fiction is quaintly known in civilized societies as lying. Making up a genre called "historical fiction" doesn't change the simple fact that Hilliard is being dishonest -- saying things about a real person that he knows are untrue. If his sincere intent was "literary criticism" as his lawyers now claim, then he would have written an essay, not a novel. They're entirely different categories of prose and I hope the court can appreciate that "fictionalizing" events of real people's lives is not literary critique, it's literally lying. And if any of the made-up events are in any way insulting, it's slander.
Shape-memory alloys, such as Ni-Ti and Cu-Zn-Al, show a large reversible strain of more than several percent due to superelasticity. In particular, the Ni-Ti-based alloy, which exhibits some ductility and excellent superelastic strain, is the only superelastic material available for practical applications at present. We herein describe a ferrous polycrystalline, high-strength, shape-memory alloy exhibiting a superelastic strain of more than 13%, with a tensile strength above 1 gigapascal, which is almost twice the maximum superelastic strain obtained in the Ni-Ti alloys.
The next challenge for materials scientists will be an intermediate elasticity material for walls. The ability of the frame to flex several percent under the force of an earthquake is a good thing, full stop. But then the walls will need to be flexible enough not to be torn off the flexible frame, yet firm enough not to deform, and thereby shatter, every single window. Granted, broken windows will kill and seriously injure fewer people than falling buildings, but engineers will want to minimize window breakage as well. It sounds like a fun problem to try to solve.
How long do you think a new hire with two years of calculus would need, to fully understand all the necessary graph theory and then exceed everybody else on your team who knows only lower level math? The learning curve for things like graph theory and set theory is trivial once you've learned something as difficult as calculus.
Instead of scaring them with lies, how about a primer on the kind of code frequently used in malicious links and some discussion of how many minutes of study are needed to write such code? In other words, assume the truth is scary enough to be worthy of their attention and scare them with that.
It's useful to know which popular science sites get it right and which don't. I prefer sciencedaily.com so far, but I'm always willing to give a chance to other secondary sources, provided they know enough to accurately summarize what's published in Nature, Science, and other peer-reviewed but costly research journals.
However, remember that the point of terrorism is to cause fear and economic loss to industrialized countries, and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction. By that standard, they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism, at basically no real risk to himself. You don't want to enshrine a system where this sort of exploit is possible, or else every group with a quibble can hold an airport hostage.
But it wasn't a terrorist, and the occasional occurrences Schneier is analysing are also not terrorism, they're just cases of travelers taking the shortest route from point a to point b, which also happens to be a prohibited route, past dozing guards or whatever. Currently, this is not a terrorist tactic and we have no reason to suspect it will become one, so it should not be treated as though it is a threat. It is just an inconvenience, and not even high on the list of inconveniences.
And, if you give your best effort, are you up to the more challenging math curriculum? Those are my only criteria for such decisions and all the answer I can offer to this question.
There is not one single AGW proponent out there that would claim that global warming is going to destroy all live as we know it.
Well, not directly, but our own best military men are treating it as a problem that has the potential to be the end of all civilized life on Earth. And they're right. Millions of people are not going to just "die off" because we like dinosaur SUVs, without a serious fucking fight.
Perhaps it's time to once again point out that "scientific proof" is a red herring.
Even after Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's Theory of Invariance, Newton's Laws of Motion and Kepler's Law of Planetary Orbits apply fully to all the conditions on which they were first based. No planet travels close enough to light speed for relativity to invalidate those theories as they apply to the observations on which they were based. These 20th century discoveries are often trumpeted in light reading for non-scientists, and some lower quality textbooks, as "overturning" classical mechanics or the like, but in fact they only extended what was previously known and proven, with modifications that really only apply to entirely new classes of observations. The conditions that require relativity or QM, nobody had thought they understood before that, so nothing was disproved by those extensions of human understanding.
And while LIGO searches for the wave or particle responsible for gravity, nobody suspects we might find it has a repulsive component we never noticed before, or that the value of the universal gravitational constant will be radically altered. Gravity is attractive, and its magnitude is known to a high degree of certainty, and it is the same value measured hundreds of years ago for most scenarios in which we calculate gravity. So I am not discounting the occasional dramatic leap in the expansion of knowledge in any way, but it is false of you to claim that in science we can never accurately use the words "prove" and "proof".
There was legitimate doubt about the ability of carbon dioxide to significantly impact global mean temperature, but there is not now, since its emission spectrum was proven to not overlap water's, by the identification of well-defined bands, rather than a blur -- in the 1950s. No legitimate scientist doubts it because it is proven beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt by things that are absolutely known about physical optics. Plenty of ignoramuses can be persuaded otherwise by overpaid charlatans, but that is not part of the scientific process. It is part of social and political processes we all ought to outgrow, post haste.
The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.
"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."
Only the data that should be destroyed, because it was wrong, was destroyed. It was not "Insightful" of Anonymous Coward to recommend keeping known-bad data. Fuck. This is why I last logged in months ago.
Pretty much fucking sums up the "debate": climate science vs. propaganda, hosted on zero-standards websites. Seriously, check the publication standards on the places that host denier material, versus the original sources of legitimate climatology information. Scientific legitimacy, publication in Science or Nature is significantly more challenging than submitting an e-mail address and creating a unique user ID.
Yet you have fallen prey to the same black and white thinking the GP was criticizing. Assuming all climate change skeptics are on the payroll of big oil is ludicrous...
It's not an assumption that the prominent "skeptics" -- Richard Lindzen for example -- are whores for Koch Industries. You may whine about my choice of words, but his financing is proven, not assumed. The same is true of the other pseudo-scientists who the hordes of illiterate "average" deniers choose to believe. None of them do good research, and all of them are on the Koch payroll. Some used to be Exxon's whores, but the current CEO quit that soon after he was hired. It was actually a bit of a scandal, to the shareholders. I think, over the next year or so, they'll be glad they're not found to still be in bed with Koch.
In the spirit of Bill Maher's "New Rules" I suggest a new corollary to Godwin's Law, that if you have to resort to a parallel to the Roman Empire Religious Hegemony, you automatically lose.
Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a PhD?...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic. To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well. This is the modern version of holding mass in latin so that you have to come through the priest to get your religion.
You don't have to have a PhD, you just have to do your statistics correctly, if you have really found something significant in the stolen data. Have you even tried, or are you just being a drama queen here?
Nature says the stolen data show no wrongdoing, as reported on/. already, and even the scandal-whore Associated Press now admits that there's nothing to the hype tooted by Rupert Murdoch's British property, The Times, to which I will not link, but which ran idiotic headlines like "The great climate change science scandal" immediately after learning that some data had been stolen, and which immediately concluded the end of the theory of anthropogenic global warming before anybody could have read even a significant fraction of the stolen material to make any remotely intelligent assessment of its general nature, much less its significance to the decades of research it supposedly undermined. Now, we know that the most "improper" behavior found was saying rude things about people they dislike. Yeah, act shocked and offended at that. Whatever.
Rupert Murdoch's minions have zero credibility to anybody with a brain. All of his properties, including the Wall Street Journal, are not to be trusted about anything, ever again. It's all just bird cage liner.
Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.
"It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators," commented the University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.
The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.
The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).
"We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data," continued Professor Davies.
The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.
"CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)," concluded Professor Davies.
We all know that if any of the petroleum-owned deniers could disprove a word of that, they would cite it explicitly and disprove as much as they could. Considering the combined financial resources of Exxon/Mobil, Texaco/Chevron and Koch Industries, everybody with a brain knows that the scientists are telling the truth and have been all along, and the data thieves are liars as well as thieves.
Is anybody here surprised that the thieves turned out to be dishonest?
Slashdot Mirror
BP for example would immediately hire assassins to murder all clean energy researchers. http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/1555243/Oil-Companies-Patent-Trolling-Biofuel-Production But I do appreciate the basic sentiment, that one accomplishment should not become a perpetual free ride. I would just err on the side of protecting the rights of individual innovators against work that could be slanderous, or laws that make murder a good investment.
How about, only individual humans can own intellectual property, not corporations or any other collectives? I think corporate "intellectual" property is a much more important problem than squabbles among artists of various kinds.
That's too absurd to be mistaken for a real event. The problem is with writing untrue things that could reasonably be interpreted as assertions of fact.
I mean, what makes you think that *you* have the right to include 'real' people into your fake fictional works ?
Indeed. Mixing fact and fiction is quaintly known in civilized societies as lying. Making up a genre called "historical fiction" doesn't change the simple fact that Hilliard is being dishonest -- saying things about a real person that he knows are untrue. If his sincere intent was "literary criticism" as his lawyers now claim, then he would have written an essay, not a novel. They're entirely different categories of prose and I hope the court can appreciate that "fictionalizing" events of real people's lives is not literary critique, it's literally lying. And if any of the made-up events are in any way insulting, it's slander.
The next challenge for materials scientists will be an intermediate elasticity material for walls. The ability of the frame to flex several percent under the force of an earthquake is a good thing, full stop. But then the walls will need to be flexible enough not to be torn off the flexible frame, yet firm enough not to deform, and thereby shatter, every single window. Granted, broken windows will kill and seriously injure fewer people than falling buildings, but engineers will want to minimize window breakage as well. It sounds like a fun problem to try to solve.
How long do you think a new hire with two years of calculus would need, to fully understand all the necessary graph theory and then exceed everybody else on your team who knows only lower level math? The learning curve for things like graph theory and set theory is trivial once you've learned something as difficult as calculus.
Instead of scaring them with lies, how about a primer on the kind of code frequently used in malicious links and some discussion of how many minutes of study are needed to write such code? In other words, assume the truth is scary enough to be worthy of their attention and scare them with that.
Traditionally, the party who pays for a thing expects that the party that has been paid has made the thing usable, and not booby-trapped.
Similarly, bad pay and zero prestige are what turn interesting and talented people off teaching.
It's useful to know which popular science sites get it right and which don't. I prefer sciencedaily.com so far, but I'm always willing to give a chance to other secondary sources, provided they know enough to accurately summarize what's published in Nature, Science, and other peer-reviewed but costly research journals.
But it wasn't a terrorist, and the occasional occurrences Schneier is analysing are also not terrorism, they're just cases of travelers taking the shortest route from point a to point b, which also happens to be a prohibited route, past dozing guards or whatever. Currently, this is not a terrorist tactic and we have no reason to suspect it will become one, so it should not be treated as though it is a threat. It is just an inconvenience, and not even high on the list of inconveniences.
http://xocolatl.reedyoung.net/
How would you exactly address this problem humanely?
Prohibit export of weapons from the U.S. and close all foreign U.S. bases.
And, if you give your best effort, are you up to the more challenging math curriculum? Those are my only criteria for such decisions and all the answer I can offer to this question.
There is not one single AGW proponent out there that would claim that global warming is going to destroy all live as we know it.
Well, not directly, but our own best military men are treating it as a problem that has the potential to be the end of all civilized life on Earth. And they're right. Millions of people are not going to just "die off" because we like dinosaur SUVs, without a serious fucking fight.
Perhaps it's time to once again point out that "scientific proof" is a red herring.
Even after Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's Theory of Invariance, Newton's Laws of Motion and Kepler's Law of Planetary Orbits apply fully to all the conditions on which they were first based. No planet travels close enough to light speed for relativity to invalidate those theories as they apply to the observations on which they were based. These 20th century discoveries are often trumpeted in light reading for non-scientists, and some lower quality textbooks, as "overturning" classical mechanics or the like, but in fact they only extended what was previously known and proven, with modifications that really only apply to entirely new classes of observations. The conditions that require relativity or QM, nobody had thought they understood before that, so nothing was disproved by those extensions of human understanding.
And while LIGO searches for the wave or particle responsible for gravity, nobody suspects we might find it has a repulsive component we never noticed before, or that the value of the universal gravitational constant will be radically altered. Gravity is attractive, and its magnitude is known to a high degree of certainty, and it is the same value measured hundreds of years ago for most scenarios in which we calculate gravity. So I am not discounting the occasional dramatic leap in the expansion of knowledge in any way, but it is false of you to claim that in science we can never accurately use the words "prove" and "proof".
There was legitimate doubt about the ability of carbon dioxide to significantly impact global mean temperature, but there is not now, since its emission spectrum was proven to not overlap water's, by the identification of well-defined bands, rather than a blur -- in the 1950s. No legitimate scientist doubts it because it is proven beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt by things that are absolutely known about physical optics. Plenty of ignoramuses can be persuaded otherwise by overpaid charlatans, but that is not part of the scientific process. It is part of social and political processes we all ought to outgrow, post haste.
The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said. "When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."
Only the data that should be destroyed, because it was wrong, was destroyed. It was not "Insightful" of Anonymous Coward to recommend keeping known-bad data. Fuck. This is why I last logged in months ago.
Pretty much fucking sums up the "debate": climate science vs. propaganda, hosted on zero-standards websites. Seriously, check the publication standards on the places that host denier material, versus the original sources of legitimate climatology information. Scientific legitimacy, publication in Science or Nature is significantly more challenging than submitting an e-mail address and creating a unique user ID.
It's as simple as that.
Yet you have fallen prey to the same black and white thinking the GP was criticizing. Assuming all climate change skeptics are on the payroll of big oil is ludicrous...
It's not an assumption that the prominent "skeptics" -- Richard Lindzen for example -- are whores for Koch Industries. You may whine about my choice of words, but his financing is proven, not assumed. The same is true of the other pseudo-scientists who the hordes of illiterate "average" deniers choose to believe. None of them do good research, and all of them are on the Koch payroll. Some used to be Exxon's whores, but the current CEO quit that soon after he was hired. It was actually a bit of a scandal, to the shareholders. I think, over the next year or so, they'll be glad they're not found to still be in bed with Koch.
Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a PhD?...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic. To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well. This is the modern version of holding mass in latin so that you have to come through the priest to get your religion.
You don't have to have a PhD, you just have to do your statistics correctly, if you have really found something significant in the stolen data. Have you even tried, or are you just being a drama queen here?
Nature says the stolen data show no wrongdoing, as reported on /. already, and even the scandal-whore Associated Press now admits that there's nothing to the hype tooted by Rupert Murdoch's British property, The Times, to which I will not link, but which ran idiotic headlines like "The great climate change science scandal" immediately after learning that some data had been stolen, and which immediately concluded the end of the theory of anthropogenic global warming before anybody could have read even a significant fraction of the stolen material to make any remotely intelligent assessment of its general nature, much less its significance to the decades of research it supposedly undermined. Now, we know that the most "improper" behavior found was saying rude things about people they dislike. Yeah, act shocked and offended at that. Whatever.
Rupert Murdoch's minions have zero credibility to anybody with a brain. All of his properties, including the Wall Street Journal, are not to be trusted about anything, ever again. It's all just bird cage liner.
God, Feynman was a badass!
No, not this, the message above by 31eq!
Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.
"It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators," commented the University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.
The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.
The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).
"We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data," continued Professor Davies.
The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.
"CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)," concluded Professor Davies.
We all know that if any of the petroleum-owned deniers could disprove a word of that, they would cite it explicitly and disprove as much as they could. Considering the combined financial resources of Exxon/Mobil, Texaco/Chevron and Koch Industries, everybody with a brain knows that the scientists are telling the truth and have been all along, and the data thieves are liars as well as thieves.
Is anybody here surprised that the thieves turned out to be dishonest?
Have you found that any of the data you need are not public domain?