Actually, Phil Jones (rightly) was slapped for his FOIA dodging. But don't let facts get in the way of your ad hominem there.
Obviously, you've somehow classified me as being on the "other" team, which is hilarious. Science - and climatology especially - needs openness to function, and Jones actively worked against that openness.
If you were any sort of real scientist, you'd join me in opposing people like Jones that conspired to hide data from dissenting viewpoints.
Right, what I'm saying is that you've, basically, bought into an urban legend. Namely the one that says that religion has killed more people than any other cause. Even IF you count the crusades and all the people burned at the stake across the last 2,000 years, it's still two or three orders of magnitude less than the deaths from war and starvation brought about by Socialism.
Oh, the National Socialists were those guys that ran around with the Buddhist symbol for luck all over the place (though backwards). You should look them up. Nasty buggers they were.
Re:I am pleased to say...
on
Vim Turns 20
·
· Score: 1
I worked on a patch for VIM ~2001 for combining searches with code folding. You could search for a term, tap zf or whatever the shortcut was, and it would fold away all lines that didn't match that code, with an adjustable number of context lines around it.
I found it very very useful for code refactoring, but Bran didn't want to include it in the main release. So I just had it up for years as an optional patch for people to compile in.
So you'd rather give your money to Mozy, that just raised their rates for average users (500GB) by 5x or so?
I'd honestly been thinking about switching to Carbonite before this fiasco... their imagined politics had nothing to do with it.
Besides, Glen Beck fulfills a necessary niche in our world, just like Mother Jones and Keith Olbermann on the left. It's actually a very good thing to have a diversity of viewpoints available. Having the media all talking with one voice would gatekeeper out a lot of alternative viewpoints.
I read both sides, and even engage in a bit of science literacy outreach for the noggins on The Blaze.
Tally up the deaths caused by the National Socialists, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the People's Republic of China, and you'll end up with a figure of over 100 million dead.
The number of people actually killed by religion is much, much lower than that, and religion has been around a lot longer than Marx.
>>Then they should have negotiated with the owners of the data. That is what dozens of other interested parties did. They were all able to show that the CRU results are robust. Are the 'skeptics' incompetent or are they just aware that having the data is not an effective way to sew doubt, but pestering scientists and weaving narratives is.
Typical. Your "team" probably broke the law but you defend it because the AGW skeptics cannot, ever, be seen to be in the moral right.
The fact that they couldn't get the data from other sources is irrelevant. What's relevant is that Phil Jones was engaging in conspiracy to avoid having to follow the law.
>>If you want to talk peace processes, then the Irish "Troubles" are recorded as having spanned 5,000 years
LOL. Celtic culture (not even "Irish" culture, per se) has only been around for 3,000 years, at the longest. The "Troubles" - Team Protestant vs. Team Catholic conflicts - are quite obviously no older than Henry VIII in the 16th Century AD, and typically when historians refer to The Troubles, they're talking about the events of the last 100 years or so.
>>More people are killed each year by arguments over their invisble sky wizards than any other cause of death.
Oh, come the fuck on. Stop repeating this vile, idiotic bullshit. Socialism has killed more people in just the last 100 years than religion has in its entire existence, probably by an order of magnitude or more.
The Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other over land, and because they're on different teams fighting over the land, not over theological disagreements. I've never seen a Palestinian marching down the street after a terrorist bombing, making some fine theological point. ("Mosiac law has been superseded!" "Convert now and get two new Testaments for the price of one!")
Humans are amazingly good at dividing themselves up into different groups and becoming really, really angry at the other group. In the Byzantine empire, the great conflict in late antiquity was over the Greens vs. the Blues, which divided the entire capital city and spilled over into politics, street violence, assassinations, and riots. What was the main sticking point between the Greens and the Blues? Ultimately, it boiled down to what chariot racing team they liked the best.
Even the Troubles in Ireland weren't over religion. They were deliminated into Team Catholic and Team Protestant, sure, but the conflict wasn't over religion. They were killing each other for a variety of reasons (English colonization of Ulster, murders and atrocities by each side), but none of it was over religion. Otherwise you'd just have seen an ecumenical council hashing out all their differences, as is what happens in actual religious conflicts.
Intellisense/autocompletion is the only IDE tool that is vaguely useful (though vastly overrated). You can use vim, or hell, notepad, to do all your coding, for real projects, along with gcc and make.
Code is/can be compact (that's why demos can be so small) and even in today's world, there's still value in knowing how yo code compactly.
>>Hell, the fact that it even rates above "What are the legal ramifications of such a device?"
From people I know that work on driverless cars, liability issues are actually the #1 issue. I.e., who pays for Timmy's brain surgery when the first driverless Prius gets into a high-speed crash.
As you say with our terrible IP laws, our society really is set up to not be able to think on the grand scale any more.
>>He didn't have any data to withhold., CRU doesn't collect data, they just analyze it
False. They collect data from people that collect data.
They wouldn't release the primary data for their work, only the results of their work.
Their critics wanted a copy of the primary data to see if they would arrive at the same results of the CRU, or not. Phil engaged in what was probably illegal behavior to deny them access to the data.
Did you even read your own reference? Contributions have gone up, though not as much as "tuition".
The reason I put tuition in quotes because tuition has become a sticker price akin to what you see at a car dealership. Nobody really pays full price, except rich folk. It's a way for the universities to legally engage in price discrimination by overcharging some students and then using that money in theory to subsidize poor students.
Also, the real reason tuition is going up is because we're sending more people to college. Each student takes a share of a relatively constant-sized pie. A=x*y. A = Total state subsidy. X = Students subsidized. Y = Subsidy per student.
My college used to subsidize 100% of tuition for instate students. Enrollment is up 4x and the subsidy rate is now 25%, but everyone is bitching about it. (People don't understand math,I guess.)
No good answer to it. We could cut enrollment, which would be bad, or we could cut all state funding for health, unemployment, K12 education, and so forth in order to maintain a 100% subsidy rate, which would be bad, too.
You missed the actual scandal in Climategate, then, hidden behind the smokescreen of the fake scandal (the allegations Jones was faking the data).
The actual scandal was that Jones was refusing access to his data and methods (saying "why should I give you data you might use to disagree with me?"), and actively colluding with Gavin of RC.org and others on ways of illegally dodging FOIA requests.
Defenders of Jones like to pretend he was being spamflooded by FOIA requests, but this is quite simply a lie from people unwilling to admit that "their team" could ever be in the ethical wrong.
Science, and especially climatology, needs openness to function.
>>Parking lots are considered roads under California law, the police have jurisdiction to ticket vehicles in them all.
Nope. You can run stop signs in front of a cop in a parking lot, and they can't do anything. They also can't ticket you for even a DUI on private roads, though I think they might be trying to change all that.
Handicapped spots and fire lanes are an exception, though,
Still doesn't make sense. Look up "solar panel" on the homedepot.com, - there is a 230W model for $500. That's about $2/W or $2000/kW. If you use that panel for 1 hour, the cost of electricity will be $2,000/kWh. If you use it for 10,000 hours, it's gonna be 20c/kWh. For 33,000 hours - about 6c/kWh. And so on. The longer it works, the cheaper the electricity. (33,000 hours @ 10hours/day is about 10 years)
Levelized energy costs are typically done over a 10 year or 20 year time span. The wikipedia article on LEC says 20 to 40 years, but since I helped write that article, well, hey, lets just use a 20 year lifespan as this is normal for solar PV.
You're missing three very important bits in your calculation above: 1) Other hardware costs of a solar system (the mandatory inverters and the optional battery backups on non-grid-tied systems are both very expensive, but you also have to run wiring and conduit along your roof) 2) Installation costs (including permitting and etc.) 3) Capacity factor of the solar panel. Most PV panels are fixed, meaning there's a limited arc of sky in which they receive meaningful amounts of sunlight. You can multiply the nominal kW rating of a solar array by about five hours to get the total kWh produced in a day. It varies based on weather and season, but flipping through the logs of my PV array, this seems like a reasonable rule of thumb.
Including the 33% subsidy rate, you'll end up with a system that costs about $6000 per kW of nominal rating (+- $2000 depending on panel cost and if you do it yourself). It'll generate 5 kWh per day of nominal kW rating. This works out to 1825kWh/year for each nominal kW of your system, or 36,500kWh/kW across the rated 20 year lifespan.
Price / Generation = LEC, or $6000/36,500kWh = 16c/kWh. It'll go up a bit over time since PV panels degrade a bit.
(I think the official LEC estimate I was given was 25c/kWh, so this back of the envelope calculation seems to be about right.)
Anyhow, I guess my point is, 6c/kWh is not anywhere close to what we have with today's PV panels. 6c/kWh is only reachable with dirty coal and nuclear. It may or may not be a pipe dream to go after cheap PV, but we won't know until we get there. But if we do, then we'll able to rip out our entire coal infrastructure and replace it with solar without raising peoples' electricity rates. Which would be a Good Thing.
>>Most economic models are based on "how we would like people to act" rather than "how people actually act".
A bigger problem is that people making significant economic decisions act based on how economic models predict they should act. So it's inherently going to generate chaotic feedback loops.
You can't really feed a model into itself. It's like the Halting Problem.
>>His assumption rests on a deeper assumption: that people KNOW what is in their best interests. Some people believe that it is in their best interest to give all their money to televangelists. Others believe it is to spend it all at the casino, in the hope of winning a big payout. Most people are NOT rational.
Some people gain happiness points by donating money to churches. (You've obviously not studied much economics if you think humans are only motivated by dollar signs. Look up "intangibles" or "quality of life" some time in the proper context.) Obviously, it IS in their "best" interest, because they're donating money without someone holding a gun to their head. You could make an argument in cases involving actual fraud that they're not acting in their best interests, I guess.
Gambling has never made a lot of sense to me (except in zero-sum games like poker), but basically it comes down to the fact that not all dollars are the same, as far as marginal utility goes. To me, the first dollar I make is my most valuable one, and my last dollar my least. Old people wasting their SSN cheques on slot machines have it the other way around - they don't care about the $20 they're wasting at the slot machine (or $200 or $2000) but that $1M that they have a negligible chance of winning has a much higher marginal value to them. So to them, it's in their "best" interest to use a slot machine, even though it seems bizarre to most of us.
>>The endgame was Amazon was allowed to sell music DRM-free, and Apple renegotiated.
Yeah, for all the lionizing Jobs has been getting these last couple weeks, Apple's been doing a lot of Leading From Behind.
My dad was telling me how great iCloud was, since it meant he could buy a song or movie once, and then download it on his Mac *or* iPad! I then told him:
1) iCloud doesn't work with movies. 2) iTunes really should let you redownload anything you've ever bought from them (it's a digital distribution service, not a physical vendor), just like how Steam works and how Amazon has worked from the beginning.
So they're just trumpeting their halfassed catching-up-to-Amazon as a brand new world.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep trying to change the topic.
It's hilarious to watch.
Nothing you've said helps exculpate Jones from the fact that he emailed all his buddies asking for tricks to evade FOIA notices.
Actually, Phil Jones (rightly) was slapped for his FOIA dodging. But don't let facts get in the way of your ad hominem there.
Obviously, you've somehow classified me as being on the "other" team, which is hilarious. Science - and climatology especially - needs openness to function, and Jones actively worked against that openness.
If you were any sort of real scientist, you'd join me in opposing people like Jones that conspired to hide data from dissenting viewpoints.
Right, what I'm saying is that you've, basically, bought into an urban legend. Namely the one that says that religion has killed more people than any other cause. Even IF you count the crusades and all the people burned at the stake across the last 2,000 years, it's still two or three orders of magnitude less than the deaths from war and starvation brought about by Socialism.
Oh, the National Socialists were those guys that ran around with the Buddhist symbol for luck all over the place (though backwards). You should look them up. Nasty buggers they were.
I worked on a patch for VIM ~2001 for combining searches with code folding. You could search for a term, tap zf or whatever the shortcut was, and it would fold away all lines that didn't match that code, with an adjustable number of context lines around it.
I found it very very useful for code refactoring, but Bran didn't want to include it in the main release. So I just had it up for years as an optional patch for people to compile in.
So you'd rather give your money to Mozy, that just raised their rates for average users (500GB) by 5x or so?
I'd honestly been thinking about switching to Carbonite before this fiasco... their imagined politics had nothing to do with it.
Besides, Glen Beck fulfills a necessary niche in our world, just like Mother Jones and Keith Olbermann on the left. It's actually a very good thing to have a diversity of viewpoints available. Having the media all talking with one voice would gatekeeper out a lot of alternative viewpoints.
I read both sides, and even engage in a bit of science literacy outreach for the noggins on The Blaze.
>>was an electrical engineer (PhD).
The last time I checked, the majority of the senior rulers of China were engineers.
So to answer the question of the summary, yes. Engineers have run a country before.
This really does explain the development of China over the last 10 or 20 years.
>>[Citation Needed]
Tally up the deaths caused by the National Socialists, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the People's Republic of China, and you'll end up with a figure of over 100 million dead.
The number of people actually killed by religion is much, much lower than that, and religion has been around a lot longer than Marx.
>>Then they should have negotiated with the owners of the data. That is what dozens of other interested parties did. They were all able to show that the CRU results are robust. Are the 'skeptics' incompetent or are they just aware that having the data is not an effective way to sew doubt, but pestering scientists and weaving narratives is.
Typical. Your "team" probably broke the law but you defend it because the AGW skeptics cannot, ever, be seen to be in the moral right.
The fact that they couldn't get the data from other sources is irrelevant. What's relevant is that Phil Jones was engaging in conspiracy to avoid having to follow the law.
>>If you want to talk peace processes, then the Irish "Troubles" are recorded as having spanned 5,000 years
LOL. Celtic culture (not even "Irish" culture, per se) has only been around for 3,000 years, at the longest. The "Troubles" - Team Protestant vs. Team Catholic conflicts - are quite obviously no older than Henry VIII in the 16th Century AD, and typically when historians refer to The Troubles, they're talking about the events of the last 100 years or so.
>>More people are killed each year by arguments over their invisble sky wizards than any other cause of death.
Oh, come the fuck on. Stop repeating this vile, idiotic bullshit. Socialism has killed more people in just the last 100 years than religion has in its entire existence, probably by an order of magnitude or more.
The Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other over land, and because they're on different teams fighting over the land, not over theological disagreements. I've never seen a Palestinian marching down the street after a terrorist bombing, making some fine theological point. ("Mosiac law has been superseded!" "Convert now and get two new Testaments for the price of one!")
Humans are amazingly good at dividing themselves up into different groups and becoming really, really angry at the other group. In the Byzantine empire, the great conflict in late antiquity was over the Greens vs. the Blues, which divided the entire capital city and spilled over into politics, street violence, assassinations, and riots. What was the main sticking point between the Greens and the Blues? Ultimately, it boiled down to what chariot racing team they liked the best.
Even the Troubles in Ireland weren't over religion. They were deliminated into Team Catholic and Team Protestant, sure, but the conflict wasn't over religion. They were killing each other for a variety of reasons (English colonization of Ulster, murders and atrocities by each side), but none of it was over religion. Otherwise you'd just have seen an ecumenical council hashing out all their differences, as is what happens in actual religious conflicts.
>>Have you ever read anything by Chomsky? The bibliographies are enormous. Opinion it may be, but uninformed it is not.
Voluminous it may be, intelligent it is not.
Chomsky is a ranting loon who thinks Cambodia was better off under Pol Pot than under the government that the US backed with airpower.
They're just holding a mirror up to the voting public and pretending that makes it a conversation.
Intellisense/autocompletion is the only IDE tool that is vaguely useful (though vastly overrated). You can use vim, or hell, notepad, to do all your coding, for real projects, along with gcc and make.
Code is/can be compact (that's why demos can be so small) and even in today's world, there's still value in knowing how yo code compactly.
>>Hell, the fact that it even rates above "What are the legal ramifications of such a device?"
From people I know that work on driverless cars, liability issues are actually the #1 issue. I.e., who pays for Timmy's brain surgery when the first driverless Prius gets into a high-speed crash.
As you say with our terrible IP laws, our society really is set up to not be able to think on the grand scale any more.
>>He didn't have any data to withhold., CRU doesn't collect data, they just analyze it
False. They collect data from people that collect data.
They wouldn't release the primary data for their work, only the results of their work.
Their critics wanted a copy of the primary data to see if they would arrive at the same results of the CRU, or not. Phil engaged in what was probably illegal behavior to deny them access to the data.
"States contribute less to them."
Did you even read your own reference? Contributions have gone up, though not as much as "tuition".
The reason I put tuition in quotes because tuition has become a sticker price akin to what you see at a car dealership. Nobody really pays full price, except rich folk. It's a way for the universities to legally engage in price discrimination by overcharging some students and then using that money in theory to subsidize poor students.
Also, the real reason tuition is going up is because we're sending more people to college. Each student takes a share of a relatively constant-sized pie. A=x*y. A = Total state subsidy. X = Students subsidized. Y = Subsidy per student.
My college used to subsidize 100% of tuition for instate students. Enrollment is up 4x and the subsidy rate is now 25%, but everyone is bitching about it. (People don't understand math,I guess.)
No good answer to it. We could cut enrollment, which would be bad, or we could cut all state funding for health, unemployment, K12 education, and so forth in order to maintain a 100% subsidy rate, which would be bad, too.
So you want to reward people that made stupid decisions, but punish people that sacrifice to pay off their loans early? That's crazy.
You missed the actual scandal in Climategate, then, hidden behind the smokescreen of the fake scandal (the allegations Jones was faking the data).
The actual scandal was that Jones was refusing access to his data and methods (saying "why should I give you data you might use to disagree with me?"), and actively colluding with Gavin of RC.org and others on ways of illegally dodging FOIA requests.
Defenders of Jones like to pretend he was being spamflooded by FOIA requests, but this is quite simply a lie from people unwilling to admit that "their team" could ever be in the ethical wrong.
Science, and especially climatology, needs openness to function.
>>Parking lots are considered roads under California law, the police have jurisdiction to ticket vehicles in them all.
Nope. You can run stop signs in front of a cop in a parking lot, and they can't do anything. They also can't ticket you for even a DUI on private roads, though I think they might be trying to change all that.
Handicapped spots and fire lanes are an exception, though,
>>On a related rant: it amazes me how blithely unaware most people are about their personal energy consumption.
Do you live somewhere cheap? Our top tier on-peak power from PG&E is 50c/kWh (give or take, depending on the precise plan you have).
Trust me when I say I and all of my neighbors know exactly how much power we're using. You never forget your first four-digit monthly power bill.
Levelized energy costs are typically done over a 10 year or 20 year time span. The wikipedia article on LEC says 20 to 40 years, but since I helped write that article, well, hey, lets just use a 20 year lifespan as this is normal for solar PV.
You're missing three very important bits in your calculation above:
1) Other hardware costs of a solar system (the mandatory inverters and the optional battery backups on non-grid-tied systems are both very expensive, but you also have to run wiring and conduit along your roof)
2) Installation costs (including permitting and etc.)
3) Capacity factor of the solar panel. Most PV panels are fixed, meaning there's a limited arc of sky in which they receive meaningful amounts of sunlight. You can multiply the nominal kW rating of a solar array by about five hours to get the total kWh produced in a day. It varies based on weather and season, but flipping through the logs of my PV array, this seems like a reasonable rule of thumb.
Including the 33% subsidy rate, you'll end up with a system that costs about $6000 per kW of nominal rating (+- $2000 depending on panel cost and if you do it yourself). It'll generate 5 kWh per day of nominal kW rating. This works out to 1825kWh/year for each nominal kW of your system, or 36,500kWh/kW across the rated 20 year lifespan.
Price / Generation = LEC, or $6000/36,500kWh = 16c/kWh. It'll go up a bit over time since PV panels degrade a bit.
(I think the official LEC estimate I was given was 25c/kWh, so this back of the envelope calculation seems to be about right.)
Anyhow, I guess my point is, 6c/kWh is not anywhere close to what we have with today's PV panels. 6c/kWh is only reachable with dirty coal and nuclear. It may or may not be a pipe dream to go after cheap PV, but we won't know until we get there. But if we do, then we'll able to rip out our entire coal infrastructure and replace it with solar without raising peoples' electricity rates. Which would be a Good Thing.
>>Most economic models are based on "how we would like people to act" rather than "how people actually act".
A bigger problem is that people making significant economic decisions act based on how economic models predict they should act. So it's inherently going to generate chaotic feedback loops.
You can't really feed a model into itself. It's like the Halting Problem.
>>His assumption rests on a deeper assumption: that people KNOW what is in their best interests. Some people believe that it is in their best interest to give all their money to televangelists. Others believe it is to spend it all at the casino, in the hope of winning a big payout. Most people are NOT rational.
Some people gain happiness points by donating money to churches. (You've obviously not studied much economics if you think humans are only motivated by dollar signs. Look up "intangibles" or "quality of life" some time in the proper context.) Obviously, it IS in their "best" interest, because they're donating money without someone holding a gun to their head. You could make an argument in cases involving actual fraud that they're not acting in their best interests, I guess.
Gambling has never made a lot of sense to me (except in zero-sum games like poker), but basically it comes down to the fact that not all dollars are the same, as far as marginal utility goes. To me, the first dollar I make is my most valuable one, and my last dollar my least. Old people wasting their SSN cheques on slot machines have it the other way around - they don't care about the $20 they're wasting at the slot machine (or $200 or $2000) but that $1M that they have a negligible chance of winning has a much higher marginal value to them. So to them, it's in their "best" interest to use a slot machine, even though it seems bizarre to most of us.
>>The endgame was Amazon was allowed to sell music DRM-free, and Apple renegotiated.
Yeah, for all the lionizing Jobs has been getting these last couple weeks, Apple's been doing a lot of Leading From Behind.
My dad was telling me how great iCloud was, since it meant he could buy a song or movie once, and then download it on his Mac *or* iPad! I then told him:
1) iCloud doesn't work with movies.
2) iTunes really should let you redownload anything you've ever bought from them (it's a digital distribution service, not a physical vendor), just like how Steam works and how Amazon has worked from the beginning.
So they're just trumpeting their halfassed catching-up-to-Amazon as a brand new world.
>>"Nuclear power plant design and safety plans" probably aren't all that secret or even very interesting
Heh. Right now, terrorists building rogue nuclear power plants is probably the only way we'll ever see a Gen IV reactor in the States.