Incorrect. "Why should I share my model with you when you might use it to disagree with me?" (paraphrased) -Phil Jones
>>Neither were FOIA avoided illegally.
Read through the archives, he talks about various dodges for FOIA requests. He got chewed out by the inquiry for this. (Well, they did it in a nicer way, saying the university should have given him more guidance on how to handle FOIA requests.)
>>What serious problems? None, that's what.
Not sharing data and models in a science that is based entirely on data and models, leading to irrepreducible results.
>>Neither was data hidden.
So they shared their data then? Please read up on the issue before embarrassing yourself.
>>Perhaps they just screw with the public for the fun of it.
You're the lunatic who thinks that politicians who are lawyers will go out of their way to pass laws to piss off lawyers, alienating a huge money-contributing part of their base, in order to impress the small fraction of Americans that think there's serious problems with how liability works in America these days.
In other words, they don't *need* to do anything - the system is already incredibly favored toward lawyers.
But yeah, chalk it up to the "busy schedules" of the "crab people congressmen" or whatever crazy conception you have for how congress works.
It's from the findings of one of the earlier panels. They found serious problems with how CRU was conducting business, just not the ones that Climategate were ostensibly about - though, as I said, those of us that had been following the issue knew the real story was about the attempts to hide data, block reproducibility, and dodge FOIA requests. In a "science" like Climatology, which is entirely based on data and modeling, this is reprehensible behavior.
I actually think AGW is real, and should be fixed. But frankly, bad behavior is never defensible, even if you agree with the person. So many people rushed to defend Phil Jones even after all the emails revealing his attempts to hide from FOIA requests were published online, because... because they agree with him. It's like during the Clinton Scandal years, when people made up various excuses for Clinton, and then after the DNA evidence came in, tried to downplay it, because they agreed with Clinton.
"The statistical methods used, though arriving at correct results, are not optimal, and it is recommended futures studies involve professional statisticians if possible"
You would think that given the gravity of their findings, the seriousness they attribute to the situation, the huge nature of the changes they propose, the affect the actions will have on everyone, the potential devastation to the world economy, etc. etc., that they would have bothered to fucking hire a few professional statisticians . Shoddy and careless is what this is.
Yeah, this really annoys me about RC.org's analysis, the Slashdot summary for this article, and other news articles reporting so terribly on the subject.
The panels have found huge systemic problems with how they were conducting science, and berated them for dodging FOIA requests. They didn't find "misconduct" in the sense that they were trying to intentionally deceive people about global warming, but Climategate (for those of us that are actually informed readers) was ALL ABOUT the FOIA dodging, shoddy data records, refusal to allow people to replicate their results, and other very anti-scientific behaviors.
And the inquiries found them "guilty" (so to speak) for exactly that. It's quite damning for Phil Jones and his merry band of climatologists, really.
RC.org, being a political hack site, gives only the barest nod to the actual problems turned out by Climategate, one of their founders being in emails from Phil Jones talking about strategies for how to dodge FOIA requests.
So they do it out of the kindness hearts? There's no collusion between them and lawyers to scratch each others backs? They are willing to alienate voters in order to pay unsolicited and unreciprocated favours to their ex-profession?
The issue is exactly that. Voters don't care, so they get away with whatever they want.
It's certainly not limited to just lawyers, of course. Generally speaking, the principle is called the Iron Triangle, if you want to read about how it works.
Even without all that, big businesses love regulation because they can afford to comply. It edges all their smaller competitors out of the business.
Remember The Jungle? The push for food safety came from the large meat packing plants, since they knew it would put their competitors out of business, and then be able to raise prices. Everyone thinks that all those regulations went in over the bitching and screaming of the large meat plants, but it's rather the opposite that's true.
>>You're right, with the caveat that most people tend to try to speak differently when they know they're speaking to digital transcription.
I said this line to my Droid. Spoke normally, reference accent, pronounced the punctuation.
Transcription: "Here I come up with a caviar the most people tend to try to speak differently from another speaking to digital transcription." I think the "comma" became caviar, somehow.
>>The Android voice input also requires that you actually say the punctuation, as well (i.e. Hello comma Mom period Yes comma a visit would be nice exclamation point).
Transcription: "The android voice input also requires directions to the punctuation, is well open for the season i eat hello, mom. Yes, of the that would be nice! Cause of the seas."
AFAIK, they're not Jewish Commie Crab people, but they're definitely lawyers.
The Democrat party protects a lot of the really degenerate behavior you see from our modern legal system, because... they're a party of lawyers. Simple enough explanation, isn't it? No conspiracy theory needed.
And yeah, there are some simple reforms that we probably should implement, that we won't get until we build up the political will to do so. Most people just don't care.
>>That's 1 lawsuit-worthy injury per 136 years of life.
I'd argue that probably none of them were "lawsuit worthy".
If you know what I mean.
One of the side effects of having so many lawyers is that when a litigator needs to sue someone in order to eat, well, there's going to be a lot of stupid fucking lawsuits in our society.
>>Seriously, get an Android phone, try out the speech recognition text entry, and then tell me speech recognition is dead.
Uh...
It's really, really, really bad.
I use it to drive one of my friends crazy from time to time. From my texting log on my Droid, when we were both visiting the Bay Area for different reasons: Him: Meet up for dinner tonight? Me: S gamma nothing in the bay area but a missionary visiting today. Him: Is that a yes then? -Another friend- says yes. Me: Okay good whenever you get out of the car on a disk give me a call and we can meet up for dinner. Him: WTF? Me, explaining: Is a google voice awesome lets me do you get text messages in the whole wide world. Him:... Me, explaining more: Google voice translation sucks really awesome anniversary accurate accurate translation. Him: I can't even figure out what your original sentences are supposed to be. Me: It is possible you are a libertarian atc recipes distributors keralites make any sense. Him: Uh... okay, you know what? I'm just going to call you now.
Looking at it above, probably the percentage of words guessed correctly was not too bad, better than half. But like the article says, it fucks up on the most important words in a sentence, the ones that carry the most meaning, and so it's not even as good as a kindergartner trying to transcribe your words badly with lots of spelling mistakes and such. Our brains can correct spelling mistakes, but these mistakes destroy meaning, irrecoverably.
Oil bubbles up from cracks in the ocean floor all the damn time.
I say we should all be THANKING British Petrol for all the fine work they've been doing removing this frightening environmental hazard from our doorstop, for so long without an accident.
I didn't play a lot of multiplayer, but as far as Single Player goes, we must have played a different game. I remember MW4 and MW4:Black Knight as Nearly Perfect renditions of my fantasies of piloting giant robots, and MW4:Mercenaries as only a little worse than the previous MWx:Mercenaries was. (I didn't like that there were fewer non-plot missions to play.) The ONLY thing I disliked about MW4 was that the missions expected (and nearly "forced") you to upgrade 'mechs. Mercenaries was less in this direction, but I really enjoyed the dynamics of the Uziel, when it wasn't outclassed by assault 'mechs. Later on, I tried to stay in my Thor as long as possible, even though on the end missions it was almost certainly more effective to be using something like a Daishi loaded up with heat sinks and large lasers.
I loved the slot restrictions, as they forced each chassis to have a "flavor" -- otherwise, I'd do like I did in MW2, MW2:GhostBear, and MW3 and just load up on dual (triple?) PPCs and heat sinks up to my ears. I liked that a Thor vs a Madcat vs an Uziel vs a Catapult was more than merely a difference in tonnage or jump jets, but made an actual tactical difference.
When I wrote CustomTF, the mod for the original Team Fortress that let you build your own class, I used Battletech as a main inspiration. The leg upgrades corresponded roughly to engines, armor to, well, armor, and so forth. Instead of tonnage limits, I used dollars, which allowed faster PCs to be roughly balanced against heavier ones. The way it worked out was that if you were loaded to the gills with armor and weapons, you were slower moving.
The metaphor in CustomTF moved on since the original conception, of course, but I think the core design strategy of Battletech is still pretty damn solid to this day.
>>Seems to me we shouldn't have a law like 'obstruction of justice' which can be applied to virtually any crime and carries a far stiffer sentance than would otherwise be constitutional.
Explain to me why we have laws against conspiracy as well. Quote: " A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a wrongful act.
Such an agreement may be made orally or in writing or implied by the conduct of the parties."
Tell me that you can't convict *every* person of this, innocent or guilty.
>>If you follow that site, then you must know that the data is all publically available and has been for a long time. Here's the link where they summarize data sources.
I do follow the site, and sure, I've seen all that before. Plus, after Climategate, Gavin went to great lengths to talk about how he's always been a believer in having data freely available, etc., etc., and posted more data available.
Not, of course, the data that was FOIA requested from Phil Jones, of course. They don't like to talk about that.
They also don't like to talk about the fact that Phil was discussing strategies of dodging FOIA requests with Gavin. As I said, RC.org deletes every post on their site referencing this.
>>Maybe because you are an ignorant sheep parroting right-wing political talking points and lies. For a question to be relevant, it needs to be honest and based on fact. Your question was based on right-wing political lies.
Parroting what?? I've never seen it ever reported anywhere that Gavin was part of Phil Jones little network of friends he was talking about ducking FOIA requests with.
I discovered the email my own fucking self while reading through the email archives posted online. Perhaps your tiny little communist brain can't understand the fact that RC.org is a bunch of partisan hacks that try to appear to be the voice of reason, and filter out any actual, verifiable, facts that are contrary to their beliefs. Doesn't sound very scientific, does it?
>>Except that RealScience heavily censors the comments on its articles.
Precisely. I've tried asking a couple times on their "Climategate Debunked" pages what Gavin's reaction to Phil Jones FOIA dodging was.
You see, Phil Jones talkied about ways of dodging FOIA requests with Gavin of RC.org fame. They're there in the email archive that was published.
Every single time I asked that question, the moderators deleted it.
I don't think it's an unreasonable question, either, since Gavin (after the scandal) suddenly became a very open-information-for-all kind of guy, but prior to the scandal breaking apparently indulged Phil Jones in his efforts to keep his data private.
In a "science" (it's not really science) that is based entirely on station data and modeling, keeping either private is against everything they claim to be for.
But then again Gavin probably agrees with what Phil Jones said, "Why should I share data with you, when you might use it to disprove something I believe in?"
I've been without TV since 2001. Haven't missed it. Really good shows (like BSG or Dexter) we either Netflix or buy the whole season for. An entire season of a show is usually cheaper than a single month of television.
Actually, we were forced to get TV a few months back (if you want VDSL, you're forced to buy a TV bundle). How horrible shows have gotten, especially reality shows, was really startling. I've filtered out all the channels except news, CSPAN, Science, History, and NatGeo, and that's been working pretty well. Is outrageously expensive (bundles don't save money when you don't want TV at all), but the fast speed of VDSL was like a siren call to me.
Hospitals are not allowed to hold patients against their will, generally speaking. The exceptions are: -Mental illness (they can hold up to 72 hours without a court order) -Public threat (you have ebola) -You have diminished capacity (stroke victim, dementia, etc.) -You're a criminal.
The way it came off, it probably seemed like the doctor wouldn't let her go, but if she wanted to walk out the door, they can't stop her, unless one of the above applies.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Neither was reproducibility blocked.
Incorrect. "Why should I share my model with you when you might use it to disagree with me?" (paraphrased) -Phil Jones
>>Neither were FOIA avoided illegally.
Read through the archives, he talks about various dodges for FOIA requests. He got chewed out by the inquiry for this. (Well, they did it in a nicer way, saying the university should have given him more guidance on how to handle FOIA requests.)
>>What serious problems? None, that's what.
Not sharing data and models in a science that is based entirely on data and models, leading to irrepreducible results.
>>Neither was data hidden.
So they shared their data then? Please read up on the issue before embarrassing yourself.
Try reading the first damn sentence? Or the whole article, maybe?
The wikipedia page has all sorts of references to read, he was just too lazy to do his own investigation, expecting to be spoon-fed a quote.
Learn to do your own damn research.
But here you go:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/31/climate-mails-inquiry-jones-cleared
>>Perhaps they just screw with the public for the fun of it.
You're the lunatic who thinks that politicians who are lawyers will go out of their way to pass laws to piss off lawyers, alienating a huge money-contributing part of their base, in order to impress the small fraction of Americans that think there's serious problems with how liability works in America these days.
In other words, they don't *need* to do anything - the system is already incredibly favored toward lawyers.
But yeah, chalk it up to the "busy schedules" of the "crab people congressmen" or whatever crazy conception you have for how congress works.
It's from the findings of one of the earlier panels. They found serious problems with how CRU was conducting business, just not the ones that Climategate were ostensibly about - though, as I said, those of us that had been following the issue knew the real story was about the attempts to hide data, block reproducibility, and dodge FOIA requests. In a "science" like Climatology, which is entirely based on data and modeling, this is reprehensible behavior.
I could dig up the actual quotes, but you can follow the various references from here on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Troll.
I actually think AGW is real, and should be fixed. But frankly, bad behavior is never defensible, even if you agree with the person. So many people rushed to defend Phil Jones even after all the emails revealing his attempts to hide from FOIA requests were published online, because... because they agree with him. It's like during the Clinton Scandal years, when people made up various excuses for Clinton, and then after the DNA evidence came in, tried to downplay it, because they agreed with Clinton.
It's rank hypocrisy.
Yeah, this really annoys me about RC.org's analysis, the Slashdot summary for this article, and other news articles reporting so terribly on the subject.
The panels have found huge systemic problems with how they were conducting science, and berated them for dodging FOIA requests. They didn't find "misconduct" in the sense that they were trying to intentionally deceive people about global warming, but Climategate (for those of us that are actually informed readers) was ALL ABOUT the FOIA dodging, shoddy data records, refusal to allow people to replicate their results, and other very anti-scientific behaviors.
And the inquiries found them "guilty" (so to speak) for exactly that. It's quite damning for Phil Jones and his merry band of climatologists, really.
RC.org, being a political hack site, gives only the barest nod to the actual problems turned out by Climategate, one of their founders being in emails from Phil Jones talking about strategies for how to dodge FOIA requests.
>>When you have as busy a schedule as many politicians do, you don't just pass possibly alienating bills for shits and giggles.
I don't believe you have any clear concept of how politics actually works.
Let's say that voters - as a group - don't care. In fact, the people that care about it are probably outnumbered by the number of lawyers in America.
The issue is exactly that. Voters don't care, so they get away with whatever they want.
It's certainly not limited to just lawyers, of course. Generally speaking, the principle is called the Iron Triangle, if you want to read about how it works.
Even without all that, big businesses love regulation because they can afford to comply. It edges all their smaller competitors out of the business.
Remember The Jungle? The push for food safety came from the large meat packing plants, since they knew it would put their competitors out of business, and then be able to raise prices. Everyone thinks that all those regulations went in over the bitching and screaming of the large meat plants, but it's rather the opposite that's true.
>>You're right, with the caveat that most people tend to try to speak differently when they know they're speaking to digital transcription.
I said this line to my Droid. Spoke normally, reference accent, pronounced the punctuation.
Transcription: "Here I come up with a caviar the most people tend to try to speak differently from another speaking to digital transcription." I think the "comma" became caviar, somehow.
>>The Android voice input also requires that you actually say the punctuation, as well (i.e. Hello comma Mom period Yes comma a visit would be nice exclamation point).
Transcription: "The android voice input also requires directions to the punctuation, is well open for the season i eat hello, mom. Yes, of the that would be nice! Cause of the seas."
Obama and Biden are both lawyers.
AFAIK, they're not Jewish Commie Crab people, but they're definitely lawyers.
The Democrat party protects a lot of the really degenerate behavior you see from our modern legal system, because... they're a party of lawyers. Simple enough explanation, isn't it? No conspiracy theory needed.
And yeah, there are some simple reforms that we probably should implement, that we won't get until we build up the political will to do so. Most people just don't care.
>>That's 1 lawsuit-worthy injury per 136 years of life.
I'd argue that probably none of them were "lawsuit worthy".
If you know what I mean.
One of the side effects of having so many lawyers is that when a litigator needs to sue someone in order to eat, well, there's going to be a lot of stupid fucking lawsuits in our society.
>>Seriously, get an Android phone, try out the speech recognition text entry, and then tell me speech recognition is dead.
Uh...
It's really, really, really bad.
I use it to drive one of my friends crazy from time to time. From my texting log on my Droid, when we were both visiting the Bay Area for different reasons: ...
Him: Meet up for dinner tonight?
Me: S gamma nothing in the bay area but a missionary visiting today.
Him: Is that a yes then? -Another friend- says yes.
Me: Okay good whenever you get out of the car on a disk give me a call and we can meet up for dinner.
Him: WTF?
Me, explaining: Is a google voice awesome lets me do you get text messages in the whole wide world.
Him:
Me, explaining more: Google voice translation sucks really awesome anniversary accurate accurate translation.
Him: I can't even figure out what your original sentences are supposed to be.
Me: It is possible you are a libertarian atc recipes distributors keralites make any sense.
Him: Uh... okay, you know what? I'm just going to call you now.
Looking at it above, probably the percentage of words guessed correctly was not too bad, better than half. But like the article says, it fucks up on the most important words in a sentence, the ones that carry the most meaning, and so it's not even as good as a kindergartner trying to transcribe your words badly with lots of spelling mistakes and such. Our brains can correct spelling mistakes, but these mistakes destroy meaning, irrecoverably.
>>Guess what, your hands are just as dirty as BP.
Oh, please.
Oil bubbles up from cracks in the ocean floor all the damn time.
I say we should all be THANKING British Petrol for all the fine work they've been doing removing this frightening environmental hazard from our doorstop, for so long without an accident.
When I wrote CustomTF, the mod for the original Team Fortress that let you build your own class, I used Battletech as a main inspiration. The leg upgrades corresponded roughly to engines, armor to, well, armor, and so forth. Instead of tonnage limits, I used dollars, which allowed faster PCs to be roughly balanced against heavier ones. The way it worked out was that if you were loaded to the gills with armor and weapons, you were slower moving.
The metaphor in CustomTF moved on since the original conception, of course, but I think the core design strategy of Battletech is still pretty damn solid to this day.
>>Seems to me we shouldn't have a law like 'obstruction of justice' which can be applied to virtually any crime and carries a far stiffer sentance than would otherwise be constitutional.
Explain to me why we have laws against conspiracy as well.
Quote:
" A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a wrongful act.
Such an agreement may be made orally or in writing or implied by the conduct of the parties."
Tell me that you can't convict *every* person of this, innocent or guilty.
>>If you follow that site, then you must know that the data is all publically available and has been for a long time. Here's the link where they summarize data sources.
I do follow the site, and sure, I've seen all that before. Plus, after Climategate, Gavin went to great lengths to talk about how he's always been a believer in having data freely available, etc., etc., and posted more data available.
Not, of course, the data that was FOIA requested from Phil Jones, of course. They don't like to talk about that.
They also don't like to talk about the fact that Phil was discussing strategies of dodging FOIA requests with Gavin. As I said, RC.org deletes every post on their site referencing this.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=914
>>Maybe because you are an ignorant sheep parroting right-wing political talking points and lies. For a question to be relevant, it needs to be honest and based on fact. Your question was based on right-wing political lies.
Parroting what?? I've never seen it ever reported anywhere that Gavin was part of Phil Jones little network of friends he was talking about ducking FOIA requests with.
I discovered the email my own fucking self while reading through the email archives posted online. Perhaps your tiny little communist brain can't understand the fact that RC.org is a bunch of partisan hacks that try to appear to be the voice of reason, and filter out any actual, verifiable, facts that are contrary to their beliefs. Doesn't sound very scientific, does it?
>>Except that RealScience heavily censors the comments on its articles.
Precisely. I've tried asking a couple times on their "Climategate Debunked" pages what Gavin's reaction to Phil Jones FOIA dodging was.
You see, Phil Jones talkied about ways of dodging FOIA requests with Gavin of RC.org fame. They're there in the email archive that was published.
Every single time I asked that question, the moderators deleted it.
I don't think it's an unreasonable question, either, since Gavin (after the scandal) suddenly became a very open-information-for-all kind of guy, but prior to the scandal breaking apparently indulged Phil Jones in his efforts to keep his data private.
In a "science" (it's not really science) that is based entirely on station data and modeling, keeping either private is against everything they claim to be for.
But then again Gavin probably agrees with what Phil Jones said, "Why should I share data with you, when you might use it to disprove something I believe in?"
I've been without TV since 2001. Haven't missed it. Really good shows (like BSG or Dexter) we either Netflix or buy the whole season for. An entire season of a show is usually cheaper than a single month of television.
Actually, we were forced to get TV a few months back (if you want VDSL, you're forced to buy a TV bundle). How horrible shows have gotten, especially reality shows, was really startling. I've filtered out all the channels except news, CSPAN, Science, History, and NatGeo, and that's been working pretty well. Is outrageously expensive (bundles don't save money when you don't want TV at all), but the fast speed of VDSL was like a siren call to me.
>>No more rehashes of Halo :D
Oh come on, Halo Wars and Orbital Drop Whatever were certainly better games than a classroom of 5th graders could have made in their free time.
>>They wouldn't let her go.
Hospitals are not allowed to hold patients against their will, generally speaking. The exceptions are:
-Mental illness (they can hold up to 72 hours without a court order)
-Public threat (you have ebola)
-You have diminished capacity (stroke victim, dementia, etc.)
-You're a criminal.
The way it came off, it probably seemed like the doctor wouldn't let her go, but if she wanted to walk out the door, they can't stop her, unless one of the above applies.