Comparing Creationism and Anti-Global Warming (as caused by humans) doesn't work. They can't be compared properly as they are NOT Scientific Theories! You can't even compare Creationism with Global Warming as caused by humans theory, since Creationism isn't a theory.
Creationism is a religion or a religious faith based theory not a scientific theory. Creationism isn't falsafiable. Global Warming as caused by humans is falsfiable. Creationism presents a theory that's trivial to prove false, in part because it makes so many absurd statements about the history and age of the universe being 10,000 years old. That means that the light photons from stars that are greater than 10,000 light years away were created by God in flight. Ya right, and what super computer did she use to compute that?
Oh, maybe the best super computer is an actual universe running on it's own? Furthermore as Wolfram has proven certain systems can't be "simulated" without running through all the interveining steps; as it happens the universe is such a system, the only way to know the future is to let it happen one step at a time. It would be much easier for a lazy God to simply create a tiny big bang and let it "evolve" and "playout" till now than to do all the calculations in her head. In fact doing all the computions for accurately simulating the universe would require a brain or computer that is the actual universe - as Wolfram has shown. So the universe is simply Gods mind computing the universe. Not really creationism, but much more plausable.
Creationism is based on a poorly translated and possibly fictional, although certinaly mythological, story book from a thousand or two years ago. Can you spell "Broken Telephone" anyone? Can you spell "power trip on and control of gullible" people through their beliefs in "something more(tm)"? Give it a rest.
Anti-Global Warming (as caused by humans) is NOT a Theory! It is the valid questioning of often poor Pro-Global Warming (as caused by humans) Science. This is valid since the science in support of GWacbH has been poor.
In addition the claims that the pro-GWacbH folks are making are "extraordinary" and as we all know all extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this goes for scientific theories as well! Just show us valid proof and then it's more likely that the theory will be accepted by the critics and skeptics.
Remember it's a scientists job to be professionally skeptical and critical, even when faced, maybe especially when faced with positive proof.
It is the responsibility of those promoting a theory to have their facts and subsequent conclusions supportable and repeatable. The important Mann (and now doubtfull) conclusions have not been repeatable. Much like Cold Fusion, Global Warming as caused by Humans is having problems. Now that Mann's data bas been proven incorrect it's back to the drawing board for the pro-global warming as caused by humans crowd. Sometimes when it's broken don't bother fixing it anymore as life is too short.
Besides after living in Edmonton for eight of the coldest years on record (-35 to -45c for months) a little global warming might be actually welcome in a few places. I for one am glad to be living in the post little ice age period. Tropics anyone?;--)
The graph used in the New Scientist article about the Bush Whitehouse accepting humans as the cause of global warming, here http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334, has been debunked as bad science here: http://www.climateaudit.org/. Mann's own bad science puts any reports that use it in doubt. This is how science works.
How did they debunk it? They used the scientific method of attempting to duplicate Mann's study using Mann's data. They couldn't. They found flaws. They found buggy software - the math was simply wrong! It always produces a hockey stick even with random data with a flat trend! They reported those flaws. Unfortunately for Mann his science was junk.
Scientific understanding progresses as a result. Now we know more.
Open source the science otherwise it's all disconnected conclusions and might as well be mind poo (a technical term;--). Mann et al kept their data secret (as you can read at the links above that debunk him). That's not science. That's closed science of the elite or the schiesters.
Open source science is science that can be audited by anyone. Otherwise how can you really judge it's value? If a scientist with the stature of Mann can be debunked and have his result crushed like a bug how can anyone trust the reputation of any scientist? The answer is that you can't ofcourse otherwise you're bringing a belief into your resoning: a belief that you trust a particular scientist. That's not science, that's potentially religion, or at least faith based science (due to the trust factor).
Open science is the only way to go to be able to have supportable conclusions. The Times Online article is just a fluff peice with no hard data to back it up. It's just a summary of items to peak interest. Where's the beef? Where's the data? I want the software. Let's audit the software for bugs. That's what was partly wrong with Mann's analysis, a software bug.
Earth is too important to us to have the wrong conclusions, no matter which way they are headed. It's better to know reality accurately than believe in a fantasy as far as Global Warming is concerned.
Which would you rather be: faith based or science based? If your are science based then you must be prepared to have your views shaken now and then as a result of more accurate and up to date science. If you are faith based then go to church and leave us rational humans be.
Oh, as a final point, it's the responsibility of a scientist to be skeptical. To hold the neurtal gound even when faced with conclusive data. To keep asking the questions time and time again. To ask questions that underly the conclusions. To question the conclusions. Remember that consensus isn't science, it's mob rule, science works by multiple scientists auditing the data, methods and process of the analysis and conclusions.
Unfortunately for Mann his famous hockey stick hasn't passed this close scutinty process. Now he has to fight for his reputation and career. It seems harsh, but that's what happens with junk science.
Eight years ago, yes, eight years ago, I was working with the first (or was it second) generation of RFID tags. In one application at a equipment rental company the tags failed on about half of the equipment due to the type of metal. Basically the tags would not work when they were attached to or directly next to the inventory objects. They would work fine two inches away from the metal but not within that distance! This prevented the adoption of the tags by this company. They really wanted to tag ALL their equipment for inventory control puposes but physics prevented it. Needless to say they were very dissappointed as was I since the project didn't continue at that point.
What I'm wondering is if the newest generation of tags works with ALL types of metals even when attached to it or next to it?
Any backup software that allows someone to backup part or all of their system including settings and preferences is prior art for this patent.
Also, this is highly obvious. Patents are supposed to be non-obvious.
The problem is that English is such a powerful and flexible language that there are many ways to describe the same technique. While there are many ways to describe it the base method of utilizing it is the same.
1. Save your data to remote computer or alternate disk drive. 2. Do something that could loose data on original computer. 3. Restore data. 4. Be happy (if restore worked).
If only people patent examiners would learn the nature of software, computer technology and complex equilivant meanings in English. Maybe then we'd be spared this.
Cellular Nano Research, Inc. just received a patent on the automatic contraction and relaxation of a clump of cells divided into four chambers and interconnected with an oxygenation system of two inflatable bags, contained within a calcium framed structural scaffolding, and permeated by a dense network of fluid carrying tubes which in turn is connected to a distribution and collection network that spreads throughout a animated celluar hydrogen-carbon based atomic nanotechnology device driven by a twin object copier, using a base four information technology, within each nanotechnology unit.
Cellular Nano is hopeful that the global market will be able to sustain royalties of USD$0.01 per 1000 contraction/relaxation cycles, and USD$0.001 per replication using their base four object copier.
This is a ground breaking technology and patents will allow the full exploitation of the masses by the company. The granting of this patent demonstrates the effectiveness of the USPTO.;--)
In the early eighties I took a weekend course entitled "Communication for Action" in Vancouver, BC, Canada from Fernando Flores, the one mentioned in the article. It was amazing to say the least. For anyone interested in honing their results producing skills I highly recommend Flores's work.
The course was on observations he made while a political prisioner in Chile under Augusto Pinochet's rule. He noticed that all communication between people comes down to four types: requests, promises, declarations and assertions. Later in his book he adds "assessments".
"[Fernando Flores] sees us at the intersection of three eras of our understanding of computers: computers as information-processing machines, computers as communication devices, and computers as the medium in which companies and individuals articulate and shift their identities. This is claimed to fit with the notion of an enterprise as a network of commitments, and the emergence of computers as instruments for people coordinating their actions and managing their commitments."
It's interesting to note that Fernando is still teaching this twenty years later, mostly to corporations now. It was compelling to read of this earlier work involved with Cybersyn.
You can check out his work with Google, some history here and in particular you can check out his communication theory work in the book "Beyond Computation".
Beyond Computation book contents index.
Fernando's chapter is entitled "The Leaders of the Future".
I would rather Yahoo stop spam from getting to my mail acocunt before they concentrate on stopping people from signing up automatically.
How about both? The XMail.net system requires signups to pass the turning test. It ALSO requires EVERY email that has unknown email addresses to pass the Gimpy Turing test before allowing access. Unknown email addresses are auto-responded to and given a five day grace period to pass the turning test before they are passed on to a potential black list. If a unknown senders ip address ends up on the potential black list too many times, zap. If the turning test is passed within the grace period then the email is passed on to the receiver and the sender is placed on a white list. Of course the sender can place the address on their black list at any time. This eliminates all spam to your email account as it blocks ALL email that is unwanted and automated. It allows strangers to send you an email if they are really human and have a legimitate reason. If you don't like their reason then you can easily block them.
If you build it they will come and buy them. Who are they? I am. I'm not an hardware guy but a software guy. You build it I'll buy it and so will many others. When will it be ready? How much will it cost?
Wouldn't it be cool to put in a Crusoe processor instead of the StrongARM?
Slashdot Mirror
Comparing Creationism and Anti-Global Warming (as caused by humans) doesn't work. They can't be compared properly as they are NOT Scientific Theories! You can't even compare Creationism with Global Warming as caused by humans theory, since Creationism isn't a theory.
;--)
Creationism is a religion or a religious faith based theory not a scientific theory. Creationism isn't falsafiable. Global Warming as caused by humans is falsfiable. Creationism presents a theory that's trivial to prove false, in part because it makes so many absurd statements about the history and age of the universe being 10,000 years old. That means that the light photons from stars that are greater than 10,000 light years away were created by God in flight. Ya right, and what super computer did she use to compute that?
Oh, maybe the best super computer is an actual universe running on it's own? Furthermore as Wolfram has proven certain systems can't be "simulated" without running through all the interveining steps; as it happens the universe is such a system, the only way to know the future is to let it happen one step at a time. It would be much easier for a lazy God to simply create a tiny big bang and let it "evolve" and "playout" till now than to do all the calculations in her head. In fact doing all the computions for accurately simulating the universe would require a brain or computer that is the actual universe - as Wolfram has shown. So the universe is simply Gods mind computing the universe. Not really creationism, but much more plausable.
Creationism is based on a poorly translated and possibly fictional, although certinaly mythological, story book from a thousand or two years ago. Can you spell "Broken Telephone" anyone? Can you spell "power trip on and control of gullible" people through their beliefs in "something more(tm)"? Give it a rest.
Anti-Global Warming (as caused by humans) is NOT a Theory! It is the valid questioning of often poor Pro-Global Warming (as caused by humans) Science. This is valid since the science in support of GWacbH has been poor.
In addition the claims that the pro-GWacbH folks are making are "extraordinary" and as we all know all extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this goes for scientific theories as well! Just show us valid proof and then it's more likely that the theory will be accepted by the critics and skeptics.
Remember it's a scientists job to be professionally skeptical and critical, even when faced, maybe especially when faced with positive proof.
It is the responsibility of those promoting a theory to have their facts and subsequent conclusions supportable and repeatable. The important Mann (and now doubtfull) conclusions have not been repeatable. Much like Cold Fusion, Global Warming as caused by Humans is having problems. Now that Mann's data bas been proven incorrect it's back to the drawing board for the pro-global warming as caused by humans crowd. Sometimes when it's broken don't bother fixing it anymore as life is too short.
Besides after living in Edmonton for eight of the coldest years on record (-35 to -45c for months) a little global warming might be actually welcome in a few places. I for one am glad to be living in the post little ice age period. Tropics anyone?
The folks at http://www.climate2003.com and http://www.climateaudit.org/ debunk the crackpots at http://www.realclimate.org/.
,00.html. Where's the data? Where's the software? Where's the actual report/paper?
;--). Mann et al kept their data secret (as you can read at the links above that debunk him). That's not science. That's closed science of the elite or the schiesters.
The folks at http://www.realclimate.org/ debunk the crackpots at http://www.climate2003.com/ and http://www.climateaudit.org/.
This is as it should be in science.
The graph used in the New Scientist article about the Bush Whitehouse accepting humans as the cause of global warming, here http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334, has been debunked as bad science here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/. Mann's own bad science puts any reports that use it in doubt. This is how science works.
How did they debunk it? They used the scientific method of attempting to duplicate Mann's study using Mann's data. They couldn't. They found flaws. They found buggy software - the math was simply wrong! It always produces a hockey stick even with random data with a flat trend! They reported those flaws. Unfortunately for Mann his science was junk.
Scientific understanding progresses as a result. Now we know more.
As for the Time Online report at the top of this thread (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955
Open source the science otherwise it's all disconnected conclusions and might as well be mind poo (a technical term
Open source science is science that can be audited by anyone. Otherwise how can you really judge it's value? If a scientist with the stature of Mann can be debunked and have his result crushed like a bug how can anyone trust the reputation of any scientist? The answer is that you can't ofcourse otherwise you're bringing a belief into your resoning: a belief that you trust a particular scientist. That's not science, that's potentially religion, or at least faith based science (due to the trust factor).
Open science is the only way to go to be able to have supportable conclusions. The Times Online article is just a fluff peice with no hard data to back it up. It's just a summary of items to peak interest. Where's the beef? Where's the data? I want the software. Let's audit the software for bugs. That's what was partly wrong with Mann's analysis, a software bug.
Earth is too important to us to have the wrong conclusions, no matter which way they are headed. It's better to know reality accurately than believe in a fantasy as far as Global Warming is concerned.
Which would you rather be: faith based or science based? If your are science based then you must be prepared to have your views shaken now and then as a result of more accurate and up to date science. If you are faith based then go to church and leave us rational humans be.
Oh, as a final point, it's the responsibility of a scientist to be skeptical. To hold the neurtal gound even when faced with conclusive data. To keep asking the questions time and time again. To ask questions that underly the conclusions. To question the conclusions. Remember that consensus isn't science, it's mob rule, science works by multiple scientists auditing the data, methods and process of the analysis and conclusions.
Unfortunately for Mann his famous hockey stick hasn't passed this close scutinty process. Now he has to fight for his reputation and career. It seems harsh, but that's what happens with junk science.
I remain an open minded skeptic.
Pet
Eight years ago, yes, eight years ago, I was working with the first (or was it second) generation of RFID tags. In one application at a equipment rental company the tags failed on about half of the equipment due to the type of metal. Basically the tags would not work when they were attached to or directly next to the inventory objects. They would work fine two inches away from the metal but not within that distance! This prevented the adoption of the tags by this company. They really wanted to tag ALL their equipment for inventory control puposes but physics prevented it. Needless to say they were very dissappointed as was I since the project didn't continue at that point.
What I'm wondering is if the newest generation of tags works with ALL types of metals even when attached to it or next to it?
Any backup software that allows someone to backup part or all of their system including settings and preferences is prior art for this patent.
Also, this is highly obvious. Patents are supposed to be non-obvious.
The problem is that English is such a powerful and flexible language that there are many ways to describe the same technique. While there are many ways to describe it the base method of utilizing it is the same.
1. Save your data to remote computer or alternate disk drive.
2. Do something that could loose data on original computer.
3. Restore data.
4. Be happy (if restore worked).
If only people patent examiners would learn the nature of software, computer technology and complex equilivant meanings in English. Maybe then we'd be spared this.
Cellular Nano Research, Inc. just received a patent on the automatic contraction and relaxation of a clump of cells divided into four chambers and interconnected with an oxygenation system of two inflatable bags, contained within a calcium framed structural scaffolding, and permeated by a dense network of fluid carrying tubes which in turn is connected to a distribution and collection network that spreads throughout a animated celluar hydrogen-carbon based atomic nanotechnology device driven by a twin object copier, using a base four information technology, within each nanotechnology unit.
;--)
Cellular Nano is hopeful that the global market will be able to sustain royalties of USD$0.01 per 1000 contraction/relaxation cycles, and USD$0.001 per replication using their base four object copier.
This is a ground breaking technology and patents will allow the full exploitation of the masses by the company. The granting of this patent demonstrates the effectiveness of the USPTO.
For an article about Fernando Flores and his work see The Power of Words.
In the early eighties I took a weekend course entitled "Communication for Action" in Vancouver, BC, Canada from Fernando Flores, the one mentioned in the article. It was amazing to say the least. For anyone interested in honing their results producing skills I highly recommend Flores's work.
The course was on observations he made while a political prisioner in Chile under Augusto Pinochet's rule. He noticed that all communication between people comes down to four types: requests, promises, declarations and assertions. Later in his book he adds "assessments".
"[Fernando Flores] sees us at the intersection of three eras of our understanding of computers: computers as information-processing machines, computers as communication devices, and computers as the medium in which companies and individuals articulate and shift their identities. This is claimed to fit with the notion of an enterprise as a network of commitments, and the emergence of computers as instruments for people coordinating their actions and managing their commitments." It's interesting to note that Fernando is still teaching this twenty years later, mostly to corporations now. It was compelling to read of this earlier work involved with Cybersyn.
You can check out his work with Google, some history here and in particular you can check out his communication theory work in the book "Beyond Computation".
Beyond Computation book contents index. Fernando's chapter is entitled "The Leaders of the Future".
Beyond Computation.
I would rather Yahoo stop spam from getting to my mail acocunt before they concentrate on stopping people from signing up automatically.
How about both? The XMail.net system requires signups to pass the turning test. It ALSO requires EVERY email that has unknown email addresses to pass the Gimpy Turing test before allowing access. Unknown email addresses are auto-responded to and given a five day grace period to pass the turning test before they are passed on to a potential black list. If a unknown senders ip address ends up on the potential black list too many times, zap. If the turning test is passed within the grace period then the email is passed on to the receiver and the sender is placed on a white list. Of course the sender can place the address on their black list at any time. This eliminates all spam to your email account as it blocks ALL email that is unwanted and automated. It allows strangers to send you an email if they are really human and have a legimitate reason. If you don't like their reason then you can easily block them.
Hi,
If you build it they will come and buy them. Who are they? I am. I'm not an hardware guy but a software guy. You build it I'll buy it and so will many others. When will it be ready? How much will it cost?
Wouldn't it be cool to put in a Crusoe processor instead of the StrongARM?
Itsybitsy out.