And who decides the kind of legitimacy they deserve or don't deserve? You? Western media? Western governments? The same people, I suppose, who decide that "we" are saints and "they" are demons. The sort of black-and-white worldview many here seem to be advocating is exactly what leads to war.
Who decides? wtf? Legitimacy is of course a matter of opinion. How convincing that opinion is depends on your arguments and evidence.
Terrorist used to be an analytic term although it always had a negative connotation. Now it increasingly is a moral term which makes it useless for analysis. This happens with a lot of words that fall into the hands of activists and politicians.
As for the separatists in the Ukraine, I've seen the term "gangster-insurgents" being used which indeed seems to be a better way to describe them.
The more challenging situations usually arise because young children are often playing without a clock, don't have to write down their moves and don't have the skills to remember even a few moves back. This means there are situations where you have two highly emotional kids and a position on the board that cannot be reconstructed. Cheating, parents and time pressure may also be involved.
However regarding penguin migrations its been largely speculative.
I like how you go from "never been observed" to "largely speculative" in such a short time. That's how science should work when faced with new evidence. The new evidence in this case are satellite images of guano trails. Sounds pretty convincing.
The press release doesn't mention climate change so I don't know why you keep going on about that. I'm sure these or other researchers will search for a link between these migrations and climate change but for now they are silent on the subject.
OK, and this is part of climate change how? They have done it for years, but now it's part of "climate change"?
Right. We do the anti-science thing in slashdot these days dont we. *sigh*
Instead of carefully reading the article you just make up your own convenient conclusions.
You say that 'Emperor penguins [...] have never been observed to change nesting location so the question is *why*' . The authors of the study challenge this notion. That is what the FINE article is about.
Relevant quote: “Our research showing that colonies seem to appear and disappear throughout the years challenges behaviors we thought we understood about emperor penguins,” said LaRue. “If we assume that these birds come back to the same locations every year, without fail, these new colonies we see on satellite images wouldn’t make any sense. These birds didn’t just appear out of thin air—they had to have come from somewhere else. This suggests that emperor penguins move among colonies. That means we need to revisit how we interpret population changes and the causes of those changes.”
This means that earlier research that used an assumption about penguin behavior similar to yours might be wrong.
Do you feel these researchers are doing the anti-science thing too?
The funny part is that it was the other way around when the climate discussions first started here on Slashdot. Then the climate threads would be page after page of dumb skeptic comments. Now the new generation of braindead are alarmist it seems.
The reason I found the article in the Telegraph is because I am biased myself. I dislike any alarmist drama, not just of the climate variation. And since the BBC has a track record when it comes to alarmism I went looking for the other side of the story;-)
I read the part about Open Source and it reads like it's written by an FSF activist. Stallman and his activists my have felt that Linux/Open Source was hijacking their cause but the reality is that the Linux strategy was just much more successful than the FSF one. Open Source was a rebranding but no coup: it pretty much covered the general attitude in the Linux movement.
I live in Amsterdam. We have lots and lots of cyclists here. There are traffic jams of just cyclists. We also have lots of tourist pedestrians who tend to clog up bike lanes. And you know what? We are all getting along just fine most of the time and when somebody gets hurt it is usually the cyclist.
You are right that they are not SCO of course. However lawyers getting more important in a company is always a bad sign as they are not about creating wealth but about getting a bigger part of the pie.
Even a meager application of Occam's razor should make it immediately clear that the people accusing the climate science community of scaremongering/profiteering are themselves some of the most aggressive profiteers the world has ever known: the fossil fuel industry.
LOL. Occam's razor is not a substitute for evidence dude. Without proof you are just another conspiracy theorist.
They might have killed the male members of the opposing tribe but our historic and genetic records show they had often a different purpose for the females. A good example is Iceland with it's Viking male and Celtic females settlers: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090116073205.htm
The whole racial thing might be the result of contemporary bias and perhaps future historians will present the PRAM II tool as evidence of how our current society is preoccupied with race.
I picked a great analogy. It works in the physical world but doesn't map to the digital world, just as the system we have pre-digital doesn't map to the digital era.
Well, if the point of the analogy was that it breaks down then we are in agreement;-)
Did I miss anything?
Yes, you are missing the big picture: there is a revolution going on. The paywalls are coming down. All information ever produced will become available at your screen, searchable, extensible and what not. Accessible to even the poorest child on this planet. A new industry will develop around it just like it did around the internet.
This is not about some morally challenged kid stealing your e-book. This will be one of the great achievements of western civilization.
As long as authors are enthusiastically promoting this revolution instead of frustrating it, they have my full support when it comes to fair compensation for their efforts.
Don't claim you understand. Show it by picking good analogies. Yours was a misleading analogy that is made time and time again in this discussion.
You can't claim you understand the issue perfectly and still make that kind of basic mistake. So don't blame me for thinking you were new to this discussion and Alicia Silverstoning you.
Next time you use a big word like 'audacity' make sure you understand at least a little bit of the issue at hand.
The discussion is not about who owns the wedding dress (or book) that your wife made. Your wife owns it forever, no discussion. The discussion is about someone seeing and liking that dress and making a copy of it. Who owns what rights to that second dress, that is what this is about.
And while you're considering this issue remember that practically everything you know and have was copied from someone else.
While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box, saying "it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past, so what happens if they stay related in the future?". He's trying to come up with laws ("this is what happens") rather than theories ("this is why it happens")
A correlation is not a law dude. You are setting yourself up for a black swan. Once you find a correlation ('this is what happens') you try to figure out the causal relation ("this is why it happens") if any so that you know how and when you can extrapolate. Don't assume things will stay the same.
One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences', is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models.
The problem is exactly the opposite: math is all over the place in social science. The problem is that the things you want to quantify like maybe 'power' or other concepts close to real human behaviour are very hard to quantify. But since you really, really want to do math or else it wouldn't be 'real science' you settle for 'hard facts', things that are easy to quantify like the GDP the author of the article is using (he really is a pretty typical economist as far as his methods go). There is even a name for this disease, it's called positivism.
So how does the GDP quantify products with a marginal cost of (almost) zero like open source software? How does it quantify work done in a non-commercial setting like the family? These kind of numbers are just indicators which might sometimes be useful but as inputs for a model they are garbage. And so the GIGO principle applies.
I love people who say this. It's not a resource problem; it's a people problem. There are too many people and not enough resources.
You misunderstood. From the linked worldhunger site:
The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.
Okay, so what is the problem exactly?
The main problem is that some societies are badly organized which results in them either producing too little or makes them vulnerable to exploitation by insiders (invariably) and sometimes outsiders.
Slashdot Mirror
I know several elderly ladies who are hardcore Wordfeud players. ;-)
I guess that's what they were saying about Union soldiers too
Yes it is called an opinion. But some opinions are better than others because they are based on evidence and good arguments.
Who decides? wtf? Legitimacy is of course a matter of opinion. How convincing that opinion is depends on your arguments and evidence.
They are certainly also soldiers but describing them only in that way gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve.
Check out this excellent description of what is going on in the Ukraine:
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabas...
Terrorist used to be an analytic term although it always had a negative connotation. Now it increasingly is a moral term which makes it useless for analysis. This happens with a lot of words that fall into the hands of activists and politicians.
As for the separatists in the Ukraine, I've seen the term "gangster-insurgents" being used which indeed seems to be a better way to describe them.
Telling if a position is mate or not is easy.
The more challenging situations usually arise because young children are often playing without a clock, don't have to write down their moves and don't have the skills to remember even a few moves back. This means there are situations where you have two highly emotional kids and a position on the board that cannot be reconstructed. Cheating, parents and time pressure may also be involved.
However regarding penguin migrations its been largely speculative.
I like how you go from "never been observed" to "largely speculative" in such a short time. That's how science should work when faced with new evidence. The new evidence in this case are satellite images of guano trails. Sounds pretty convincing.
The press release doesn't mention climate change so I don't know why you keep going on about that. I'm sure these or other researchers will search for a link between these migrations and climate change but for now they are silent on the subject.
Instead of carefully reading the article you just make up your own convenient conclusions.
You say that 'Emperor penguins [...] have never been observed to change nesting location so the question is *why*' . The authors of the study challenge this notion. That is what the FINE article is about.
Relevant quote:
“Our research showing that colonies seem to appear and disappear throughout the years challenges behaviors we thought we understood about emperor penguins,” said LaRue. “If we assume that these birds come back to the same locations every year, without fail, these new colonies we see on satellite images wouldn’t make any sense. These birds didn’t just appear out of thin air—they had to have come from somewhere else. This suggests that emperor penguins move among colonies. That means we need to revisit how we interpret population changes and the causes of those changes.”
This means that earlier research that used an assumption about penguin behavior similar to yours might be wrong.
Do you feel these researchers are doing the anti-science thing too?
The funny part is that it was the other way around when the climate discussions first started here on Slashdot. Then the climate threads would be page after page of dumb skeptic comments. Now the new generation of braindead are alarmist it seems.
The reason I found the article in the Telegraph is because I am biased myself. I dislike any alarmist drama, not just of the climate variation. And since the BBC has a track record when it comes to alarmism I went looking for the other side of the story ;-)
I was hoping that you could backup your own claim but it seems you want me to do it for you ;-)
Oh, well, that settles it! Throw decades of psychological research out the window because Franklin stated an uninformed opinion in 1750.
Which research? You have me interested.
A hero's welcome ha ha.
What would the festivities be like? Letting them bomb a few buses?
Most people in the west oppose both Assad and Al-Qaeda.
Aronian is doing a massive jump these days due to Tata Steel.
Huh? How does a company make the guy better at chess?
Van Wely thought it made no sense either and beat Aronian today. Goodbye massive jump.
Western refers to culture, not to geography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western
I read the part about Open Source and it reads like it's written by an FSF activist. Stallman and his activists my have felt that Linux/Open Source was hijacking their cause but the reality is that the Linux strategy was just much more successful than the FSF one. Open Source was a rebranding but no coup: it pretty much covered the general attitude in the Linux movement.
I live in Amsterdam. We have lots and lots of cyclists here. There are traffic jams of just cyclists. We also have lots of tourist pedestrians who tend to clog up bike lanes. And you know what? We are all getting along just fine most of the time and when somebody gets hurt it is usually the cyclist.
500k a month are 2009 numbers, it is now >5m a month: http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Gartner-Android-smartphone-sales-surged-8888-in-2010/1297309933
You are right that they are not SCO of course. However lawyers getting more important in a company is always a bad sign as they are not about creating wealth but about getting a bigger part of the pie.
Even a meager application of Occam's razor should make it immediately clear that the people accusing the climate science community of scaremongering/profiteering are themselves some of the most aggressive profiteers the world has ever known: the fossil fuel industry.
LOL. Occam's razor is not a substitute for evidence dude. Without proof you are just another conspiracy theorist.
They might have killed the male members of the opposing tribe but our historic and genetic records show they had often a different purpose for the females. A good example is Iceland with it's Viking male and Celtic females settlers: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090116073205.htm
The whole racial thing might be the result of contemporary bias and perhaps future historians will present the PRAM II tool as evidence of how our current society is preoccupied with race.
I picked a great analogy. It works in the physical world but doesn't map to the digital world, just as the system we have pre-digital doesn't map to the digital era.
Well, if the point of the analogy was that it breaks down then we are in agreement ;-)
Did I miss anything?
Yes, you are missing the big picture: there is a revolution going on. The paywalls are coming down. All information ever produced will become available at your screen, searchable, extensible and what not. Accessible to even the poorest child on this planet. A new industry will develop around it just like it did around the internet.
This is not about some morally challenged kid stealing your e-book. This will be one of the great achievements of western civilization.
As long as authors are enthusiastically promoting this revolution instead of frustrating it, they have my full support when it comes to fair compensation for their efforts.
ROTFLMAO. I understand it perfectly
Don't claim you understand. Show it by picking good analogies. Yours was a misleading analogy that is made time and time again in this discussion.
You can't claim you understand the issue perfectly and still make that kind of basic mistake. So don't blame me for thinking you were new to this discussion and Alicia Silverstoning you.
Next time you use a big word like 'audacity' make sure you understand at least a little bit of the issue at hand.
The discussion is not about who owns the wedding dress (or book) that your wife made. Your wife owns it forever, no discussion. The discussion is about someone seeing and liking that dress and making a copy of it. Who owns what rights to that second dress, that is what this is about.
And while you're considering this issue remember that practically everything you know and have was copied from someone else.
While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box, saying "it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past, so what happens if they stay related in the future?". He's trying to come up with laws ("this is what happens") rather than theories ("this is why it happens")
A correlation is not a law dude. You are setting yourself up for a black swan. Once you find a correlation ('this is what happens') you try to figure out the causal relation ("this is why it happens") if any so that you know how and when you can extrapolate. Don't assume things will stay the same.
One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences', is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models.
The problem is exactly the opposite: math is all over the place in social science. The problem is that the things you want to quantify like maybe 'power' or other concepts close to real human behaviour are very hard to quantify. But since you really, really want to do math or else it wouldn't be 'real science' you settle for 'hard facts', things that are easy to quantify like the GDP the author of the article is using (he really is a pretty typical economist as far as his methods go). There is even a name for this disease, it's called positivism.
So how does the GDP quantify products with a marginal cost of (almost) zero like open source software? How does it quantify work done in a non-commercial setting like the family? These kind of numbers are just indicators which might sometimes be useful but as inputs for a model they are garbage. And so the GIGO principle applies.
I love people who say this. It's not a resource problem; it's a people problem. There are too many people and not enough resources.
You misunderstood. From the linked worldhunger site:
Okay, so what is the problem exactly?
The main problem is that some societies are badly organized which results in them either producing too little or makes them vulnerable to exploitation by insiders (invariably) and sometimes outsiders.