I don't think "vanishing within a couple of months" is actually part of the NNTP standard.
No, but nor is the waiver of copyright by the author. So we either understand the way Usenet always worked (implicit waiver of copyright, implicit expiration of articles) or we don't (no expiration of articles, I get to keep my copyright).
That's bollocks. Google Groups, and Deja-news before it, are both News servers.
No they're not, their web-servers.
Anybody running NNTP is perfectly justified in keeping your precious little posts as long as they like.
But they've no right to redistribute them on the web. Sorry, but Usenet posts are copyright their authors, and those authors have an absolute right to determine the manner in which they are to be redistributed.
Well, I don't know about the US, but this is *specifically* legislated for in the UK. And I know that in the US the right of you to copy information from library books is still very much controlled by copyright law.
Reference to information is not the same as duplication and redistribution of information.
I can't believe that you removed a FREE service that I liked and used and replaced it with another FREE service
Well, considering that they don't have any explicit right to reproduce everyone's copyrighted Usenet postings, they'd be really hard pushed to charge for this service anyway. In this case, the freeloading cuts both ways.
... date limited searches are back on the "Advanced Search" page! Woohoo! That was the show stopper for me. Other than that, its nearly all cosmetic changes, and I don't care about those.
Specifically, my profession. And he accused us of being motivated by money. CLUE : If I was motivated by money, I wouldn't be working in a university.
a study recently showed that Solar output has been on a spike for the past few centuries. I wonder if the fact that a giant fusion ball nearby wouldn't contribute to Earth getting hotter?
Well, it didn't last century, or the one before that, did it?
It is extremely likely that the models are constructed using implicit assumptions about climate that lead to the conclusion being sought. This is my opinion. You probably disagree.
I'll say. Let me guess -- you've absolutely no idea what these implicit assumptions might be, because you've had no experience of climate modelling. You've merely decided to assert them into being to fit your agenda.
Do you really think the assumptions behind GCMs are not scrutinised in obsessive detail? I can cite you 20 papers (at least, from the top of my head) of finely argued mathematical logic, detailing in the minutest detail the ranges of validity of things like the Boussinesq approximation, hydrostatic balance, quasi-geostrophy, eddy-viscosity, many with extensive comparison with experimental and observational data.
Guess what in 2004 is the biggest POLLUTER, and emitter of "greenhouse" gases in Washington State?
I'm shocked -- shocked -- to discover that this is true in Washington State, universally regarded as a hotbed of US heavy industry and traditional center of your motor industry. Incidentally, care to guess what the biggest polluter in Michigan was? How about New Jersey?
For every scientist who predicts global warming doom and gloom, you will find as many who say that it isn't happening, or that human activity isn't a significant factor.
Actually, that's not the case. For every scientist who says the end is nigh, you'll find one who says it isn't, and about 25,000 who say
"Well, we can't be completely sure, but global warming does appear to be happening, and the best climate models we have do suggest that the rise in atmospheric C02 might be a large contibutory factor."
ii) The models are wrong, but scientists don't know it. They predict global warming, but due to omissions in the theory, this won't actually occur. The scientist believe the results, because they're the best we've got.
iii) The models are wrong, the scientists do know it, but they're not telling anyone because they'd all have to get proper jobs.
I put it to you that either (i) or (ii) happen to be the case, but that only (iii) is consistent with the assertion
I guess it's very hard to get continued funding for a study that says "Everything's fine, situation normal" That must be why, no matter what the scientific endeavor, there's always some cataclysmic disaster looming on the horizon.
I want to know which scientific journal published articles on it which had been peer reviewed (or where in Nature, in particular, since thats the clear inference).
None of the references given at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/phrenology/texts.h tm mention the journal nature. I repeat : To which, reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal published an article supporting phrenology?
Nobody is accusing the world of science of foul-play.
No. That's precisely what you're doing.
You're saying that scientists are either falsifying or wilfully misinterpreting their results (stressing that "there's always some cataclysmic disaster looming on the horizon" which you imply is fictional). And you suggest, they do this for personal, professional or financial gain.
You have absolutely no evidence for either implication, both of which are absolutely disgraceful.
And yes, I'm emotional, you've just accused me of being a dishonest charlatan. I'm allowed to be emotional.
no matter what the scientific endeavor, there's always some cataclysmic disaster looming on the horizon.
Sure there is. Who could've missed the astronomers saying the planet was about to be eaten by a giant space worm?
Or the chemists saying that bucky-balls are a major cause of global arthritis?
Or the recent flood of biologists publishing data suggesting that trees are plotting behind are backs.
These results are based on model runs. You can believe them or not (although its unlikely you're qualified to make a informed assessment), but I've heard of no climate modelers deliberately putting falsifying data or results in order to keep funding.
Do you have any references to such activity, or are you just spreading malice?
Is there something hidden away in the US Constitution that says that all Bills laid before Congress must have names that are really crap acronyms?
Is there someone on the hill whose job it is to make them up?
Re:Welcome to capitalism
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Academia is good for theoretical work, but not for actually getting something done. Academics don't have any real incentive
Who do you think is doing a vast amount of the research for the pharmaceutical firms? Academic pharmacology groups working in Universities, many (most?) of whom are entirely funded by self-raised private finance, through either medical charities or drug companies.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't have it both ways.
Well, I don't know about the US, but this is *specifically* legislated for in the UK. And I know that in the US the right of you to copy information from library books is still very much controlled by copyright law.
Reference to information is not the same as duplication and redistribution of information.
... date limited searches are back on the "Advanced Search" page! Woohoo! That was the show stopper for me. Other than that, its nearly all cosmetic changes, and I don't care about those.
Why do I feel this will end up moderated (-1 too bloody subtle)
Medical journals are not the same thing. Even today, medical journals are happy to publish studies on alternative therapies and the like.
Do you really think the assumptions behind GCMs are not scrutinised in obsessive detail? I can cite you 20 papers (at least, from the top of my head) of finely argued mathematical logic, detailing in the minutest detail the ranges of validity of things like the Boussinesq approximation, hydrostatic balance, quasi-geostrophy, eddy-viscosity, many with extensive comparison with experimental and observational data.
i) The models are right.
ii) The models are wrong, but scientists don't know it. They predict global warming, but due to omissions in the theory, this won't actually occur. The scientist believe the results, because they're the best we've got.
iii) The models are wrong, the scientists do know it, but they're not telling anyone because they'd all have to get proper jobs.
I put it to you that either (i) or (ii) happen to be the case, but that only (iii) is consistent with the assertion
I know what Phrenology is, thanks.
I want to know which scientific journal published articles on it which had been peer reviewed (or where in Nature, in particular, since thats the clear inference).
None of the references given at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/phrenology/texts.h tm
mention the journal nature. I repeat : To which, reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal published an article supporting phrenology?
You're saying that scientists are either falsifying or wilfully misinterpreting their results (stressing that "there's always some cataclysmic disaster looming on the horizon" which you imply is fictional). And you suggest, they do this for personal, professional or financial gain.
You have absolutely no evidence for either implication, both of which are absolutely disgraceful.
And yes, I'm emotional, you've just accused me of being a dishonest charlatan. I'm allowed to be emotional.
Or the chemists saying that bucky-balls are a major cause of global arthritis?
Or the recent flood of biologists publishing data suggesting that trees are plotting behind are backs.
These results are based on model runs. You can believe them or not (although its unlikely you're qualified to make a informed assessment), but I've heard of no climate modelers deliberately putting falsifying data or results in order to keep funding.
Do you have any references to such activity, or are you just spreading malice?
Is there something hidden away in the US Constitution that says that all Bills laid before Congress must have names that are really crap acronyms?
Is there someone on the hill whose job it is to make them up?
And its scheduled for release at roughly the same time as Saddam Hussein