It'll be splendid if you come up, independently, with same conclusions as someone else
I think I misstated. I should have said "worried someone else has independently gotten the same results as me and will publish first." That may be good for science to have repeatability, but it sure wouldn't be good for me personally.
I am a PhD student, so my specific topic I have a very high interest level in obviously. I have a google alert and an alert from pubmed (digital database of biomedical research) for certain key words on that very narrow topic. Partially so I my knowledge of that area is up to date, and partially because I'm worried someone else will publish similar conclusions to the ones I'm coming to.
If you have a broader, but still specific field you're interested in (like cell biology, or astrophysics), you might just skim through a relevant journal. There are several free online ones, like Plos one. Some other journals have highlights pages, with brief summaries of some of the most interesting research. They have very dense research articles in them written for experts in those particular fields, but the first parts of the printed journals are written for a general science audience. They'll have the highlights of the most interesting research and explain the significance, some interesting editorials. Some of that content is available for free on their websites. I don't see much use in getting a printed version delivered to you, but maybe a local library gets a copy. But if you know you're more interested in one general area that just "any science" then maybe work on regularly skimming the relevant journals.
Science at large, mostly slashdot. I seem to recall seeing some real fluff pieces, or fairly inaccurate posts on general science blogs like new scientist, but the real reason I don't frequent such websites is because I don't have much interest in such a wide scope of science. In high school I liked reading some introductory books about physics or ecology, but now if it's not cell science I feel like a fish out of water, I just don't have the background. Maybe I'm getting more closed minded. I hope not.
Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.
There's a name fore people like that.
A name for people who see no reason to question the experts but question them anyway? I can think of several names for people like that. "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" is one of the more polite ones.
IMHO, it's not even remotely reasonable to start making political decisions and implementing laws or policies based on climate information, if that information isn't freely available.
Information has been freely available for quite a while. Delaying only makes things worse. You say now "We need to at -LEAST- wait until this particular data set is available." What's the next reason to hold off going to be?
We need to wait until EVERY researcher is on board, even these ones who are funded by BP.
It's not reasonable to start changing things until we're -sure- temperatures are rising everywhere.
We can't curb CO2 emissions until we are sure these rising temperatures are actually doing something bad.
Well OBVIOUSLY we can't cut CO2 emissions now, we're in the middle of a recession!
Why would we start now? These scientists are saying it can't -possibly- get hotter, all the damage has been done.
It only makes sense that the most interested parties would be the ones to foot the bill to get the initial information collected up and bundled for their use
I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home. I see a few people who have vested interests in trying to prove this data wrong, and I see some people who don't want to believe hard times are ahead trying to shoot the messenger. Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.
That will probably convince all those politicians paid off by the oil and coal lobby. Also will probably do a lot to restore their reputation with people who took the "gate" to mean that climate change was disproven.
Social security is bringing in a surplus and is necessary for many citizens. Citizens who paid their part for their benefits. Cutting it because the government is spending too much elsewhere would be nonsensical.
Very true. Slightly more deluxe version would be magic markers and a paper towel. Anyone who spends hundreds of dollars so their child can draw on the window and not be bored deserves to have crudely drawn penises be permanently drawn on all their windows.
"MyBitCoin, Liberty Reserve, WebMoney, Neteller, Moneybookers" -- that's what they gave as alternatives. neteller is quite popular for things that paypal doesn't allow, paypal is like the sunday school money of the world.
You lost me when you said "Bitcoin" and I realized you weren't making a joke.
here are also various subsides (CRP land at the federal level or CREP land here in Minnesota) where farmers are paid to not grow on some of their land.
I know, but there are good reasons behind that. There are areas you -don't- want farmers to use for ecological reasons. If you don't pay them not to farm there, they will, and that will cause more harm than good, except to that farmer. That's a -key- area where I think free market forces work in agriculture against the common good. Again, there are no doubt abuses, but cancelling the program altogether would be extremely short-sighted.
Same goes with eliminating agriculture subsidies entirely. There is ample room for cutting them down and reform, but to dump the whole thing would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, except instead of a baby, it's the nation's food supply.
You needn't be so specific in targeting the conservatives - it's true of all politicians from all sides across the whole world
Can you name a scientific finding that liberal politicians have suppressed? Not to say liberal politicians are above that, it just seems to me that they're generally too busy suppressing sex or money scandals, or waiving the white flag to conservative business interests to suppress science.
It's more a surprise that a lot of people who will actually lose out with lower taxes are crying for it. In a nutshell, the less you earn, the higher the tax rate you want. At least if you're smart.
Some of my relatives who are going to be retired in 5-10 years are big fox news watchers and all about cutting taxes. Smokers too. How they've been convinced that cutting health benefits, medicare, and social security is not the worst idea possible is beyond me. I don't know what I'll say if their houses are foreclosed on. "I told you so. If you want, I'll drive you to the homeless shelter" I guess?
I have a better idea. How about we do the following programs: 1. Stop Agriculture subsidies
I strongly suspect that agriculture subsidies are necessary. I don't think full free market forces acting on our food supply is something that would have good effects. That said, politics have corrupted the management of the subsidies we have now and are actively encouraging monoculture in corn instead of making sure they -don't- happen. Still, I can't see doing away with all subsidies improving the situation. Regulation is needed, and political regulation without subsidies would probably leave us with no farmers and no food before too long. Given the industry's importance, I'm not in favor of experimenting wildly with it.
Note, the Humble Tip goes to Humble Bundle, Inc. itself, which pays for the bandwidth and development of this promotion. You determine how much we deserve to earn or lose from your purchase.
Anyone have an idea of how much this would amount to per person out of curiosity?
And then there's customers who threw their console out the window in anger at PSN being offline, then realized they couldn't quit the console and bought a new one.
Are you including shovelware? Because there seemed to be a whole lot of that on the wii.
"Everyone is buying the wii? Quick, make a game and slap it out there by next month! Doesn't matter what it is! With these numbers, people are going to be buying this game just because it is for the wii! Ninjas and gingerbread men you say'Ninjabread man'? ? Holy hell! We don't even need a game with that, the title alone will sell!"
The companies that did that and all those others deserved to lose money.
Look at the top scores by metacritic.. Mostly nintendo titles. 3rd party developers didn't really seem to try. It seems like by the time they realized people had actually bought the wii, people who would have bought their games had already put theirs away. I for one got tired of waiting for someone to make a fucking game for it and started ignoring the offerings completely. If they lost money on the wii, it was their own fault for not putting forth a serious effort. (Okami may be the sole exception there, offering a good game early on and still lost money.)
Making statements with no supporting arguments is a much more efficient way of arguing on the internet. The next step is trading ad homenim attacks (I'm going to call you stupid probably, just a heads up, nothing personal it's just what I do) and then one of us is going to Godwin and we'll both win.
Ah, I see that I did let a bit of bias show there. You're right, people that kill other people in the name of their religion are all equally bad. Islamic or christian terrorists, there's no real difference in how much they're perverting their own religion, both or neither should have had quotes.
I think it's a big deal that Mozilla decided to make TWO independent OSes, both with the exact same goals, and both with even the same name, "Boot to Gecko." Why -not- have two news stories for each of the two identical projects?
I'm confused. Is BadAnalogyGuy making an on-topic joke that GP wooshed on? Was GP furthering the joke and TheRaven64 wooshed? Did "TheRaven64" just hint that he was a sockpuppet for commodore_64? Did TheRaven64 just call GP a stupid ho?
I'm just going to woosh myself just to be safe. WOOSH!!
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be splendid if you come up, independently, with same conclusions as someone else
I think I misstated. I should have said "worried someone else has independently gotten the same results as me and will publish first." That may be good for science to have repeatability, but it sure wouldn't be good for me personally.
I am a PhD student, so my specific topic I have a very high interest level in obviously. I have a google alert and an alert from pubmed (digital database of biomedical research) for certain key words on that very narrow topic. Partially so I my knowledge of that area is up to date, and partially because I'm worried someone else will publish similar conclusions to the ones I'm coming to.
If you have a broader, but still specific field you're interested in (like cell biology, or astrophysics), you might just skim through a relevant journal. There are several free online ones, like Plos one. Some other journals have highlights pages, with brief summaries of some of the most interesting research. They have very dense research articles in them written for experts in those particular fields, but the first parts of the printed journals are written for a general science audience. They'll have the highlights of the most interesting research and explain the significance, some interesting editorials. Some of that content is available for free on their websites. I don't see much use in getting a printed version delivered to you, but maybe a local library gets a copy. But if you know you're more interested in one general area that just "any science" then maybe work on regularly skimming the relevant journals.
Science at large, mostly slashdot. I seem to recall seeing some real fluff pieces, or fairly inaccurate posts on general science blogs like new scientist, but the real reason I don't frequent such websites is because I don't have much interest in such a wide scope of science. In high school I liked reading some introductory books about physics or ecology, but now if it's not cell science I feel like a fish out of water, I just don't have the background. Maybe I'm getting more closed minded. I hope not.
Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.
There's a name fore people like that.
A name for people who see no reason to question the experts but question them anyway? I can think of several names for people like that. "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" is one of the more polite ones.
IMHO, it's not even remotely reasonable to start making political decisions and implementing laws or policies based on climate information, if that information isn't freely available.
Information has been freely available for quite a while. Delaying only makes things worse. You say now "We need to at -LEAST- wait until this particular data set is available." What's the next reason to hold off going to be?
We need to wait until EVERY researcher is on board, even these ones who are funded by BP.
It's not reasonable to start changing things until we're -sure- temperatures are rising everywhere.
We can't curb CO2 emissions until we are sure these rising temperatures are actually doing something bad.
Well OBVIOUSLY we can't cut CO2 emissions now, we're in the middle of a recession!
Why would we start now? These scientists are saying it can't -possibly- get hotter, all the damage has been done.
It only makes sense that the most interested parties would be the ones to foot the bill to get the initial information collected up and bundled for their use
I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home. I see a few people who have vested interests in trying to prove this data wrong, and I see some people who don't want to believe hard times are ahead trying to shoot the messenger. Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.
That will probably convince all those politicians paid off by the oil and coal lobby. Also will probably do a lot to restore their reputation with people who took the "gate" to mean that climate change was disproven.
Curbing our carbon emissions, here we come!
Social security is bringing in a surplus and is necessary for many citizens. Citizens who paid their part for their benefits. Cutting it because the government is spending too much elsewhere would be nonsensical.
As far a Boehner being black, I got nothing.
He's clearly orange, not black.
Why don't we shoot these people again?
Because we can't get good insurance salesperson shooting insurance for some reason...
Very true. Slightly more deluxe version would be magic markers and a paper towel. Anyone who spends hundreds of dollars so their child can draw on the window and not be bored deserves to have crudely drawn penises be permanently drawn on all their windows.
"MyBitCoin, Liberty Reserve, WebMoney, Neteller, Moneybookers" -- that's what they gave as alternatives. neteller is quite popular for things that paypal doesn't allow, paypal is like the sunday school money of the world.
You lost me when you said "Bitcoin" and I realized you weren't making a joke.
So it's perfectly OK for CmdrTaco to come round your house and kick you in the nuts?
"OK"? Why the hell do you think I STARTED using slashdot?!?
here are also various subsides (CRP land at the federal level or CREP land here in Minnesota) where farmers are paid to not grow on some of their land.
I know, but there are good reasons behind that. There are areas you -don't- want farmers to use for ecological reasons. If you don't pay them not to farm there, they will, and that will cause more harm than good, except to that farmer. That's a -key- area where I think free market forces work in agriculture against the common good. Again, there are no doubt abuses, but cancelling the program altogether would be extremely short-sighted.
Same goes with eliminating agriculture subsidies entirely. There is ample room for cutting them down and reform, but to dump the whole thing would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, except instead of a baby, it's the nation's food supply.
You needn't be so specific in targeting the conservatives - it's true of all politicians from all sides across the whole world
Can you name a scientific finding that liberal politicians have suppressed? Not to say liberal politicians are above that, it just seems to me that they're generally too busy suppressing sex or money scandals, or waiving the white flag to conservative business interests to suppress science.
It's more a surprise that a lot of people who will actually lose out with lower taxes are crying for it. In a nutshell, the less you earn, the higher the tax rate you want. At least if you're smart.
Some of my relatives who are going to be retired in 5-10 years are big fox news watchers and all about cutting taxes. Smokers too. How they've been convinced that cutting health benefits, medicare, and social security is not the worst idea possible is beyond me. I don't know what I'll say if their houses are foreclosed on. "I told you so. If you want, I'll drive you to the homeless shelter" I guess?
I have a better idea. How about we do the following programs: 1. Stop Agriculture subsidies
I strongly suspect that agriculture subsidies are necessary. I don't think full free market forces acting on our food supply is something that would have good effects. That said, politics have corrupted the management of the subsidies we have now and are actively encouraging monoculture in corn instead of making sure they -don't- happen. Still, I can't see doing away with all subsidies improving the situation. Regulation is needed, and political regulation without subsidies would probably leave us with no farmers and no food before too long. Given the industry's importance, I'm not in favor of experimenting wildly with it.
Note, the Humble Tip goes to Humble Bundle, Inc. itself, which pays for the bandwidth and development of this promotion. You determine how much we deserve to earn or lose from your purchase.
Anyone have an idea of how much this would amount to per person out of curiosity?
And then there's customers who threw their console out the window in anger at PSN being offline, then realized they couldn't quit the console and bought a new one.
Are you including shovelware? Because there seemed to be a whole lot of that on the wii.
"Everyone is buying the wii? Quick, make a game and slap it out there by next month! Doesn't matter what it is! With these numbers, people are going to be buying this game just because it is for the wii! Ninjas and gingerbread men you say'Ninjabread man'? ? Holy hell! We don't even need a game with that, the title alone will sell!"
The companies that did that and all those others deserved to lose money.
Look at the top scores by metacritic.. Mostly nintendo titles. 3rd party developers didn't really seem to try. It seems like by the time they realized people had actually bought the wii, people who would have bought their games had already put theirs away. I for one got tired of waiting for someone to make a fucking game for it and started ignoring the offerings completely. If they lost money on the wii, it was their own fault for not putting forth a serious effort. (Okami may be the sole exception there, offering a good game early on and still lost money.)
All press is good advertising I guess. "PS3... been hearing a lot about that in the news... think I'll get one..."
Counterpoint: no it doesn't.
Making statements with no supporting arguments is a much more efficient way of arguing on the internet. The next step is trading ad homenim attacks (I'm going to call you stupid probably, just a heads up, nothing personal it's just what I do) and then one of us is going to Godwin and we'll both win.
Ah, I see that I did let a bit of bias show there. You're right, people that kill other people in the name of their religion are all equally bad. Islamic or christian terrorists, there's no real difference in how much they're perverting their own religion, both or neither should have had quotes.
I think it's a big deal that Mozilla decided to make TWO independent OSes, both with the exact same goals, and both with even the same name, "Boot to Gecko." Why -not- have two news stories for each of the two identical projects?
I'm confused. Is BadAnalogyGuy making an on-topic joke that GP wooshed on? Was GP furthering the joke and TheRaven64 wooshed? Did "TheRaven64" just hint that he was a sockpuppet for commodore_64? Did TheRaven64 just call GP a stupid ho?
I'm just going to woosh myself just to be safe. WOOSH!!
Google says I should do dumb things? Dumb things like accidentally collecting private wifi information around the globe? ZING!!!
How many people actually reboot their Linux systems?
Probably at least a few more when this rolls out and sleep instead of shutdown only saves 12 seconds.