I'll grant that the article is interesting - I don't think he's an idiot, but...
A lot of what he goes over are basically examples of known fallacies that didn't actually get eliminated from the science - the back pain anecdote is particularly good for that. He's *right* that a causal relationship was found in large part because no one checked the null hypothesis, and a scientist is just as liable as anyone to see an 'obvious' connection and make the obvious assumption. Known fallacy: confirmation bias.
But the solution was exactly what was done - check the null hypothesis and realize that you're finding these symptoms in 2/3rds of patients because 2/3rds of people have these issues whether they have backpain or not.
That's - not a failure of science. That's a *success* of science that eliminated a modern superstition that had arisen out of a known fallacy.
A lot of the anecdotes seem to fall in that same path.
No, actually you're agnostic because you're ignorant. You're arguments about 'both sides' being vested interests and having evidence of fraud is a textbook example of ignorance foisted by the climate-change denialists.
As far as compelling goes - well, if you don't find 98% of scientists compelling, and wish to weigh them on one side as on par with Rush Limbaugh on the other, well that's compelling evidence of something all right.
I know I definitely prefer the metric system . . . philosophically.
I'm now old enough that actually switching to it and trying to decide whether 30 degrees is too hot or too cold is annoying. Still, at some point we're gonna have to bite the bullet and make it easier on our kids and harder on ourselves.
Why would people think we could create a competitive website that offered content in a way that people would link to us and increase our network footprint?
No - we should be given a boost in violation of the integrity of the search engine, while search providers lie to the consumer and downgrade others. Because we can't compete on an even playing field.
I confess, the only class I ever (consistently) took notes in was my World History in college. Math/Science/Programming were always so easy I never needed notes, but history had a lot of information that I needed to access, and I took copious notes.
I'm not sure I ever studied the notes afterward - there is something about going in via the ear and flowing out the hand that recorded it in a denser format than just listening in class did, but I never actually studied the notes afterward, and I aced both semesters (Well, B the first semester for failure to complete the paper, and that was only because the prof looked at my test scores and it was obvious I was there and engaged so he didn't auto-fail me.). So at least my experience varies from Bjork's theories.
Poor, badly implemented playback with small storage and a lousy interface. Want Ogg? Flac? Decent Headphones? Good organization via tags? I would be a bit surprised if the iPhone didn't have quite a lot of that (Don't know, Don't much care). But your basic dumbphone doesn't. My MP3 player does very good on most of it - and with Rockbox installed has excellent results with all of it it plus the geek cred of playing Midi.
Really, any good MP3 player ought to play Midi - {G}.
The problem is, going by the judges reasoning, I'm not sure you can produce any photo that wouldn't qualify as infringing an earlier work. The "Copying" is in the setting and the technique, and neither those nor the sum of those is copyrightable -- or at least was not until now.
Would love to find an earlier photo, buy the copyright off of the owner for a pittance, and sue both of them.
Except that the right overlapping rights of corporations were traditionally held as the right to contract as a person. Speech is a creative right, one that had been traditionally been withheld as germane only to a person; One can ask a person what his opinion is, a question that doesn't even make sense in the light of a corporation - one cannot ask a corporation anything, only the duly authorized representative of a corporation.
In regard to a contract, swearing in a duly authorized representative makes sense, whether the representative of a person or a corporation. In regard to political speech? It's a question that falls under "That's not right . . . that's not even wrong . ..".
And then conflating this already badly extended metaphor to the additional illogical thinking that donating money is a right equivalent to speech? You think that several 'moderately wealthy' citizens should band together to match a singular corporation?
By any sane definition of moderately wealthy that doesn't even make sense mathematically. The average income in the United Stated is ~$(30,000 to 40,000) The Presidents Salary is $400,000, or about equivalent to 10-13 average people. 30 corporations that pais no income tax paid . . . over $475,000,000. 15 Million Dollars, each. If you consider $400,000/year 'moderately' wealthy, it would only require 37 people, donating their entire income to the cause, to match one corporate budget.
People read your post. It's completely disconnected from reality.
This neat theory that corporate personhood was a badly phrased but highly meaningless concept vanished the instant the Supreme Court extended the protections of freedom of speech to corporations. Combined with money == speech, corporations have rights unmatched by any but the wealthiest Citizens.
But thank you for playing and here's your copy of the home game
One simple obvious thing I haven't figured out, is if super-cooled Helium qualifies as a Bose-Einstein condensate, and if not why not? Everything I see on this refers to BEC's being created in 1995, but I equally see the properties of supercooled helium as being due to Bose-Einstein Statistics, even to a point of noting that Helium IV creates a superfluid faster than (at higher temperature) because Helium IV is naturally a boson, while Helium III is only a boson in pairs.
Do superfluids qualify as a condensate, could they qualify if they were cooled further, and what are the actual differences between a Helium IV superfluid and a condensate?
http://passwordmaker.org/ is something of the same concept (And has a Firefox Plugin); Create a master password, pick password requirements (Legit characters/length) and a hash algorithm and it genarates a unique password for every website.
I don't worry so much about changing them; I've upgraded them to 16 characters which is sufficient for practical purposes for the foreseeable future.
So, your belief this is meaningless is based on the assumption that: The multiple of two completely unsupported percentages
(a=0.01% Capable of reading source code, *b= 5% Willing to read source code and inform the Public) * #c Open Source Users is smaller than the multiple of
(x% Capable of Reading Machine Code, * y% Willing to Break the Law to Reverse Engineer that Machine Code, but are honest enough to inform the Public) * #z Closed Source users.
I don't think your logic holds up for any sane set of number c, x, y, and z, but let us be empirical about it -- do something the Government does not like on your equally safe closed source operating system and we'll find out.
I'm assuming you only posted that to show how to form an Ad Hominem fallacy. Since the logic of the articles seems fairly spot on, as far as it goes.
It's was an issue as far back as equating encryption to a weapons export - but there was at least a fairly solid line drawn around the encryption issue, and the legal levels that were available were sufficient for most purposes at the time.
This political game extends that type of interference, not as a specific category you can plan and compensate for, but as a vague category manipulated by large corporations in accordance to their momentary short-term interests, possibly negotiated behind the scenes of even the political system; The results of those negotiations might not be strictly legal even within this framework, but since you won't have the opportunity to even be aware of them until the hammer comes down, that does you no good.
Under those circumstances, remaining coupled to operating systems subject to that kind of intervention is stupid if not suicidal.
Actually no - This is one of those "IANAL - but I did do a paper on this in college" deals; getting licensed use of a copyrighted item for use in a movie is a major legal issue for independent moviemakers. It's not by and large things like posters, books, the obvious stuff - it's all the stuff that it doesn't necessarily occur to you is copyrighted - like chairs (well, furniture in general), picture frames, cars, buildings, and on and on.
The major studios have interlocking license agreements that effectively 'freeze-out' independent film-makers on a lot of this. In their turn most experienced independent studios have worked out what can/can't be done, but it can be a real shock to a new artist.
Which if nothing else shows how idiotically Warner Brothers dropped the ball on this - this was stupid. I'd love to see their domain yanked for this - see how *they* like being held to the standards they've advocated for everyone else.
Because the premade versions of Linux fit my needs better than OSX or Windows - My needs include customization, strong security, not worrying about malware, access to strong commandline, automated software updates - all thing that linux does better than Windows or OS X. Unity sucks, and I moved to KDE, but *linux* still fits my needs.
I always love how people compare industries with millions of dollars on the line with industries with tens or hundeds of billions as if the political influence were identical.
It's like comparing the gravitational influence of Earth and Jupiter and saying they're equally huge planets.
That's . . . fairly insulting to the Christian Science Monitor (assuming that's what you're referring to).
I'll be the first to admit, I have to remind myself that their name has only a historical connection to 'Christian Science' - I always feel like I should expect lousy science news from them.
Actually, when taken together -- Every attempt to debunk the data has failed miserably, the models have been panning out, the temperature rises right in the center between the optimistic and pessimistic estimates, the only politicization is from people making money hand over fist in the fossil fuel economy -- I feel fairly comfortable glancing over the article, realizing it the same debunked arguments that have been trotted out since the 80's, and going on.
Particularly with an article that states the evidence is on par with the original 'Climategate' email evidence of 'destroying' data -- all of which was completely debunked already.
But hey - quotes with ellipses between sentences and no context at all - how could that be at all misleading? Only a complete cynic would remember that every Forbes article on climate starts with this tripe and get completely debunked later.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll grant that the article is interesting - I don't think he's an idiot, but ...
A lot of what he goes over are basically examples of known fallacies that didn't actually get eliminated from the science - the back pain anecdote is particularly good for that. He's *right* that a causal relationship was found in large part because no one checked the null hypothesis, and a scientist is just as liable as anyone to see an 'obvious' connection and make the obvious assumption. Known fallacy: confirmation bias.
But the solution was exactly what was done - check the null hypothesis and realize that you're finding these symptoms in 2/3rds of patients because 2/3rds of people have these issues whether they have backpain or not.
That's - not a failure of science. That's a *success* of science that eliminated a modern superstition that had arisen out of a known fallacy.
A lot of the anecdotes seem to fall in that same path.
Pug
Forbes, that Left Wing propaganda machine . . .
No, actually you're agnostic because you're ignorant. You're arguments about 'both sides' being vested interests and having evidence of fraud is a textbook example of ignorance foisted by the climate-change denialists.
As far as compelling goes - well, if you don't find 98% of scientists compelling, and wish to weigh them on one side as on par with Rush Limbaugh on the other, well that's compelling evidence of something all right.
Pug
I know I definitely prefer the metric system . . . philosophically.
I'm now old enough that actually switching to it and trying to decide whether 30 degrees is too hot or too cold is annoying.
Still, at some point we're gonna have to bite the bullet and make it easier on our kids and harder on ourselves.
Pug
Why would people think we could create a competitive website that offered content in a way that people would link to us and increase our network footprint?
No - we should be given a boost in violation of the integrity of the search engine, while search providers lie to the consumer and downgrade others. Because we can't compete on an even playing field.
Pug
I confess, the only class I ever (consistently) took notes in was my World History in college. Math/Science/Programming were always so easy I never needed notes, but history had a lot of information that I needed to access, and I took copious notes.
I'm not sure I ever studied the notes afterward - there is something about going in via the ear and flowing out the hand that recorded it in a denser format than just listening in class did, but I never actually studied the notes afterward, and I aced both semesters (Well, B the first semester for failure to complete the paper, and that was only because the prof looked at my test scores and it was obvious I was there and engaged so he didn't auto-fail me.). So at least my experience varies from Bjork's theories.
Pug
Poor, badly implemented playback with small storage and a lousy interface.
Want Ogg? Flac? Decent Headphones? Good organization via tags?
I would be a bit surprised if the iPhone didn't have quite a lot of that (Don't know, Don't much care). But your basic dumbphone doesn't.
My MP3 player does very good on most of it - and with Rockbox installed has excellent results with all of it it plus the geek cred of playing Midi.
Really, any good MP3 player ought to play Midi - {G}.
Pug
Full of Gas and spewing on for years . . .
Explains so much about Star Trek VI
The problem is, going by the judges reasoning, I'm not sure you can produce any photo that wouldn't qualify as infringing an earlier work. The "Copying" is in the setting and the technique, and neither those nor the sum of those is copyrightable -- or at least was not until now.
Would love to find an earlier photo, buy the copyright off of the owner for a pittance, and sue both of them.
Pug
Except that the right overlapping rights of corporations were traditionally held as the right to contract as a person. Speech is a creative right, one that had been traditionally been withheld as germane only to a person; One can ask a person what his opinion is, a question that doesn't even make sense in the light of a corporation - one cannot ask a corporation anything, only the duly authorized representative of a corporation.
In regard to a contract, swearing in a duly authorized representative makes sense, whether the representative of a person or a corporation. In regard to political speech? It's a question that falls under "That's not right . . . that's not even wrong . . .".
And then conflating this already badly extended metaphor to the additional illogical thinking that donating money is a right equivalent to speech? You think that several 'moderately wealthy' citizens should band together to match a singular corporation?
By any sane definition of moderately wealthy that doesn't even make sense mathematically. The average income in the United Stated is ~$(30,000 to 40,000) The Presidents Salary is $400,000, or about equivalent to 10-13 average people. 30 corporations that pais no income tax paid . . . over $475,000,000. 15 Million Dollars, each. If you consider $400,000/year 'moderately' wealthy, it would only require 37 people, donating their entire income to the cause, to match one corporate budget.
People read your post. It's completely disconnected from reality.
Pug
This neat theory that corporate personhood was a badly phrased but highly meaningless concept vanished the instant the Supreme Court extended the protections of freedom of speech to corporations. Combined with money == speech, corporations have rights unmatched by any but the wealthiest Citizens.
But thank you for playing and here's your copy of the home game
Our Hatred of the French is *NOT* Irrational.
Any culture that idolizes Jerry Lewis is obviously Evil.
I *KNEW* Global Warming was a Canadian Ruskie Pinko Plot! Next you'll have actors impersonating our Starship Captains!
Pug
No - according to his voting record and platform he was a moderate.
The mistake was thinking he was a moderate Democrat.
Pug
One simple obvious thing I haven't figured out, is if super-cooled Helium qualifies as a Bose-Einstein condensate, and if not why not? Everything I see on this refers to BEC's being created in 1995, but I equally see the properties of supercooled helium as being due to Bose-Einstein Statistics, even to a point of noting that Helium IV creates a superfluid faster than (at higher temperature) because Helium IV is naturally a boson, while Helium III is only a boson in pairs.
Do superfluids qualify as a condensate, could they qualify if they were cooled further, and what are the actual differences between a Helium IV superfluid and a condensate?
Small words only please boson-breathe - {grin}
Pug
http://passwordmaker.org/ is something of the same concept (And has a Firefox Plugin); Create a master password, pick password requirements (Legit characters/length) and a hash algorithm and it genarates a unique password for every website.
I don't worry so much about changing them; I've upgraded them to 16 characters which is sufficient for practical purposes for the foreseeable future.
Pug
So, your belief this is meaningless is based on the assumption that:
The multiple of two completely unsupported percentages
(a=0.01% Capable of reading source code, *b= 5% Willing to read source code and inform the Public) * #c Open Source Users
is smaller than the multiple of
(x% Capable of Reading Machine Code, * y% Willing to Break the Law to Reverse Engineer that Machine Code, but are honest enough to inform the Public) * #z Closed Source users.
I don't think your logic holds up for any sane set of number c, x, y, and z, but let us be empirical about it -- do something the Government does not like on your equally safe closed source operating system and we'll find out.
Pug
I'm assuming you only posted that to show how to form an Ad Hominem fallacy. Since the logic of the articles seems fairly spot on, as far as it goes.
It's was an issue as far back as equating encryption to a weapons export - but there was at least a fairly solid line drawn around the encryption issue, and the legal levels that were available were sufficient for most purposes at the time.
This political game extends that type of interference, not as a specific category you can plan and compensate for, but as a vague category manipulated by large corporations in accordance to their momentary short-term interests, possibly negotiated behind the scenes of even the political system; The results of those negotiations might not be strictly legal even within this framework, but since you won't have the opportunity to even be aware of them until the hammer comes down, that does you no good.
Under those circumstances, remaining coupled to operating systems subject to that kind of intervention is stupid if not suicidal.
Actually no - This is one of those "IANAL - but I did do a paper on this in college" deals; getting licensed use of a copyrighted item for use in a movie is a major legal issue for independent moviemakers. It's not by and large things like posters, books, the obvious stuff - it's all the stuff that it doesn't necessarily occur to you is copyrighted - like chairs (well, furniture in general), picture frames, cars, buildings, and on and on.
The major studios have interlocking license agreements that effectively 'freeze-out' independent film-makers on a lot of this. In their turn most experienced independent studios have worked out what can/can't be done, but it can be a real shock to a new artist.
Which if nothing else shows how idiotically Warner Brothers dropped the ball on this - this was stupid. I'd love to see their domain yanked for this - see how *they* like being held to the standards they've advocated for everyone else.
Pug
Because the premade versions of Linux fit my needs better than OSX or Windows -
My needs include customization, strong security, not worrying about malware, access to strong commandline, automated software updates - all thing that linux does better than Windows or OS X.
Unity sucks, and I moved to KDE, but *linux* still fits my needs.
I always love how people compare industries with millions of dollars on the line with industries with tens or hundeds of billions as if the political influence were identical.
It's like comparing the gravitational influence of Earth and Jupiter and saying they're equally huge planets.
Pug
That's . . . fairly insulting to the Christian Science Monitor (assuming that's what you're referring to).
I'll be the first to admit, I have to remind myself that their name has only a historical connection to 'Christian Science' - I always feel like I should expect lousy science news from them.
Pug
Actually, when taken together -- Every attempt to debunk the data has failed miserably, the models have been panning out, the temperature rises right in the center between the optimistic and pessimistic estimates, the only politicization is from people making money hand over fist in the fossil fuel economy -- I feel fairly comfortable glancing over the article, realizing it the same debunked arguments that have been trotted out since the 80's, and going on.
Particularly with an article that states the evidence is on par with the original 'Climategate' email evidence of 'destroying' data -- all of which was completely debunked already.
But hey - quotes with ellipses between sentences and no context at all - how could that be at all misleading? Only a complete cynic would remember that every Forbes article on climate starts with this tripe and get completely debunked later.
Pug
I don't know - the Bush administration was dumb incompetent and evil - do you really think smart professional evil could do more damage?
No one arguing with you can mod you. You just naturally come off as a troll.
Well, I would use the term jackass, but there's no listing for that.
Pug