Well the issue is that if they disclose the passwords and he fucks things up, they can already be screwed, so this precedent has potential to just invalidate their only option
America's government is pretty much 100% in support of the policies of the Chinese government. That's is why America gives their country over 300 billion dollars a year in financial support.
Surely we wouldn't give them so much money if we opposed them??? Right???
>>You might be able to write an iPhone worm, but you wouldn't be able to write an iPhone/Android/Java/BREW worm that attacks anyone on any cell network. That worm would also not work on a PC running Windows/OS X/Linux/BSD.
With the ability to fabricate arbitrary evidence, the laws need not be secret. The scary thing about a police state isn't that people disappear without explanation...it's that explanation is manufactured upon demand.
I can't see anyone this hurts but pedophiles. I'd feel a lot safer, as a 22 year old, knowing that the people I discuss linux with aren't underage. We all know linux is a euphism for sex.
Sweden and Denmark being left out was ignorance; I didn't realize they were included in the region though it seems obvious in retrospect. But I do know Scandenavia isn't a country, and I can find Afghanistan on a map;P
I always figured sooner or later I'd have a chance to be that dumb American;)
*shrug* There are many different freedoms. Find a social contract that provides those you care about.
Other countries match my desires more when it comes to freedom. This isn't a "hurr amerikkka sucks, othercountry is awesome". It's both are imperfect and one fits me better.
2nd amendment for the right to roam? Seems like an easy trade to me. To each his own, that's one reason there are different countries.
Neither is Europe, but some groups of countries share properties. Finland, Iceland, and Norway all strike me as potential places to emigrate if I ever get freaked out by the increasing loss of freedom in America. It'll take a lot more than the PATRIOT act to scare me off, though.
Free to go to jail for unwillingly/unknowingly receiving a picture of a child. Free to go to jail for someone else pirating something and clumsy morons tracing it back to us. Free to go to jail for exercising the right of free use. Free to be exploited first by corporate monopolies, then the government, then both at the same time.
That said, we're also:
Free to deny the holocaust or make "hateful" racist statements Free to insult Turkishness Free to insult the Thai monarch Free to call for the overthrow of the government by non-violent means Free to campaign for a change to the laws (and be ignored, but still) Free to play video games with blood and gore Free from that many spy cameras placed at every angle everywhere Free to use cryptography and refuse to disclose the passphrase under the 5th amendment. Until quite recently, free to peaceably assemble. Now we have to use Intel's assembler.
I'm not saying things are exactly peachy here in the US, but I don't see a lot of countries that are freer. Scandinavia comes to mind. What's most troubling in the US is not that we're not free, we're pretty good, it's how incredibly quickly we're losing rights.
Without context on what "adjust" means here, your claim contains no information. Having used that word recently in emails on some on our research, I was referring to subtracting a DC offset so we could more clearly analyze the signal, and filtering out noise.
Now those particular techniques aren't applicable to the CRU afaik, but frequently in scientific discourse words are used in subtly different ways. In my experience, you don't sweep dishonesty under the rug. You can't afford to, a few bad conclusions can screw up everything. I just had to go through debunking something I'd hoped would be true and it's not fun, but believe me, the cost of being wrong is not something scientists want to gamble with. The payoff just isn't worth it.
People don't go into science to make money and they don't go into science to be famous outside their little world. They go into science to learn more about the universe and to make a name for themselves in their field, and to build up a reputation as intelligent, incisive, and diligent. A single minor mishap will bring the judgment and shunning of your peers; many of us take it as seriously as if you killed your wife.
Your own friends, your own grad students, your own professors, will turn you in. Read about some of the famous cases, and what ended up happening. Some are acquitted, and some are convicted. Millikan's famous oil drop, the scandals in the Hood lab at Caltech, the cold fusion incident, the Stanford particle physics forgeries, that guy who drew spots on mice with a sharpie to pretend he'd bred it into them, the Bell Labs scientist who fabricated lies instead of chips. See what makes a case and what doesn't, and how science deals with traitors: with a jury of their peers.
Spend years analyzing both the emails and raw data and other data from the CRU. Replicate all the work these people did, and perform your one analysis. Then you have a right to come to conclusions about them, as will those who will try them. See their research from their perspective, and see whether it checks out, and, if not, why not.
I'm sorry but this has McScandal written all over it, especially the timing of it. There's as much money and power pushing climate change denial as there is pushing in favor of going green.
Tree ring data is no more or less accurate now; it's just that since 1960 we have thermometers instead, giving more accurate results.
It is my opinion that climate change researchers have done more than enough to explain their results to the world, and if the world does not understand, that the world has not done enough to understand them, and is just watching too much Fox.
I remember one time were publishing some results, and for comparison we added a curve for a "cheating" algorithm (looked at the answer to figure out which of several methods worked best rather than using our non-cheating decision algorithm). I wanted to label it "Cheater" but got overridden by the PI who wanted to call it "Oracle". We compromised on oracle and a few sentences in the text explaining what it did.
Point is that you have to be oh-so-careful with these things. When someone accuses you of scientific misconduct it's nice to not just be technically innocent, but obviously innocent. And by "it's nice", I mean, "it's your neck".
Keep in mind that the climate does go through cycles and we've been both much warmer and cooler than this before. It's only looking at the rate of change of temperature that one starts to see anthropogenic climate change. I wouldn't call it "obvious", but I would say that the evidence is easy enough to understand if one puts effort into understanding it.
Please don't say "global warming". While it is technically correct on average, it tends to create confusion deniers use due to the parts of the earth that are getting cooler or more monsoons or whatnot.
Unfortunately, there are some very powerful interests behind this insidious climate change denial movement, and we have a big fight on our hands if we're to have even a prayer of the earth being habitable in a few centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the issue is that if they disclose the passwords and he fucks things up, they can already be screwed, so this precedent has potential to just invalidate their only option
America's government is pretty much 100% in support of the policies of the Chinese government. That's is why America gives their country over 300 billion dollars a year in financial support.
Surely we wouldn't give them so much money if we opposed them??? Right???
Fixed that for you.
That shows a very naive understanding of Christianity. Haven't you read the Gospel of Reagan?
>>You might be able to write an iPhone worm, but you wouldn't be able to write an iPhone/Android/Java/BREW worm that attacks anyone on any cell network. That worm would also not work on a PC running Windows/OS X/Linux/BSD.
Dude it's called snowcrash.
Murdoch is Australian-born.
With the ability to fabricate arbitrary evidence, the laws need not be secret. The scary thing about a police state isn't that people disappear without explanation...it's that explanation is manufactured upon demand.
They don't know they're talking to a child. Do you know how old I am without looking at my post just above? I could be 8.
Join us now, and share the...uh nevermind...
*trails off*
I can't see anyone this hurts but pedophiles. I'd feel a lot safer, as a 22 year old, knowing that the people I discuss linux with aren't underage. We all know linux is a euphism for sex.
Do you have anything you'd like to tell the children before we go?
Yes... ...conform,consume obeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey!
Sweden and Denmark being left out was ignorance; I didn't realize they were included in the region though it seems obvious in retrospect. But I do know Scandenavia isn't a country, and I can find Afghanistan on a map;P
I always figured sooner or later I'd have a chance to be that dumb American;)
*shrug* There are many different freedoms. Find a social contract that provides those you care about.
Other countries match my desires more when it comes to freedom. This isn't a "hurr amerikkka sucks, othercountry is awesome". It's both are imperfect and one fits me better.
2nd amendment for the right to roam? Seems like an easy trade to me. To each his own, that's one reason there are different countries.
Neither is Europe, but some groups of countries share properties. Finland, Iceland, and Norway all strike me as potential places to emigrate if I ever get freaked out by the increasing loss of freedom in America. It'll take a lot more than the PATRIOT act to scare me off, though.
He was almost certainly kidding.
Free to go to jail for unwillingly/unknowingly receiving a picture of a child.
Free to go to jail for someone else pirating something and clumsy morons tracing it back to us.
Free to go to jail for exercising the right of free use.
Free to be exploited first by corporate monopolies, then the government, then both at the same time.
That said, we're also:
Free to deny the holocaust or make "hateful" racist statements
Free to insult Turkishness
Free to insult the Thai monarch
Free to call for the overthrow of the government by non-violent means
Free to campaign for a change to the laws (and be ignored, but still)
Free to play video games with blood and gore
Free from that many spy cameras placed at every angle everywhere
Free to use cryptography and refuse to disclose the passphrase under the 5th amendment.
Until quite recently, free to peaceably assemble. Now we have to use Intel's assembler.
I'm not saying things are exactly peachy here in the US, but I don't see a lot of countries that are freer. Scandinavia comes to mind. What's most troubling in the US is not that we're not free, we're pretty good, it's how incredibly quickly we're losing rights.
to violate my privacy that way. I'd have guessed a few cents, or 100 for a dollar.
No, but at least this way he's not costing me tax dollars. I call that win.
Mostly we don't send it into space.
Who gives a fuck what he's good at? What job do I not want to do that you don't have to be good at...I can think of quite a few.
Without context on what "adjust" means here, your claim contains no information. Having used that word recently in emails on some on our research, I was referring to subtracting a DC offset so we could more clearly analyze the signal, and filtering out noise.
Now those particular techniques aren't applicable to the CRU afaik, but frequently in scientific discourse words are used in subtly different ways. In my experience, you don't sweep dishonesty under the rug. You can't afford to, a few bad conclusions can screw up everything. I just had to go through debunking something I'd hoped would be true and it's not fun, but believe me, the cost of being wrong is not something scientists want to gamble with. The payoff just isn't worth it.
People don't go into science to make money and they don't go into science to be famous outside their little world. They go into science to learn more about the universe and to make a name for themselves in their field, and to build up a reputation as intelligent, incisive, and diligent. A single minor mishap will bring the judgment and shunning of your peers; many of us take it as seriously as if you killed your wife.
Your own friends, your own grad students, your own professors, will turn you in. Read about some of the famous cases, and what ended up happening. Some are acquitted, and some are convicted. Millikan's famous oil drop, the scandals in the Hood lab at Caltech, the cold fusion incident, the Stanford particle physics forgeries, that guy who drew spots on mice with a sharpie to pretend he'd bred it into them, the Bell Labs scientist who fabricated lies instead of chips. See what makes a case and what doesn't, and how science deals with traitors: with a jury of their peers.
Spend years analyzing both the emails and raw data and other data from the CRU. Replicate all the work these people did, and perform your one analysis. Then you have a right to come to conclusions about them, as will those who will try them. See their research from their perspective, and see whether it checks out, and, if not, why not.
I'm sorry but this has McScandal written all over it, especially the timing of it. There's as much money and power pushing climate change denial as there is pushing in favor of going green.
There are plenty of politicians, big interests, and money on both sides. That sort of environment doesn't leave a lot of room for science.
Tree ring data is no more or less accurate now; it's just that since 1960 we have thermometers instead, giving more accurate results.
It is my opinion that climate change researchers have done more than enough to explain their results to the world, and if the world does not understand, that the world has not done enough to understand them, and is just watching too much Fox.
I remember one time were publishing some results, and for comparison we added a curve for a "cheating" algorithm (looked at the answer to figure out which of several methods worked best rather than using our non-cheating decision algorithm). I wanted to label it "Cheater" but got overridden by the PI who wanted to call it "Oracle". We compromised on oracle and a few sentences in the text explaining what it did.
Point is that you have to be oh-so-careful with these things. When someone accuses you of scientific misconduct it's nice to not just be technically innocent, but obviously innocent. And by "it's nice", I mean, "it's your neck".
Keep in mind that the climate does go through cycles and we've been both much warmer and cooler than this before. It's only looking at the rate of change of temperature that one starts to see anthropogenic climate change. I wouldn't call it "obvious", but I would say that the evidence is easy enough to understand if one puts effort into understanding it.
Please don't say "global warming". While it is technically correct on average, it tends to create confusion deniers use due to the parts of the earth that are getting cooler or more monsoons or whatnot.
Unfortunately, there are some very powerful interests behind this insidious climate change denial movement, and we have a big fight on our hands if we're to have even a prayer of the earth being habitable in a few centuries.
Seeing as how Iran can ban anyone from running for any reason, why bother rigging a vote illegally; they already can legally.