To paraphrase you post. When it comes to governments accusation = conviction. I don't buy it. Sure one can point to some abuse in every government agency. But that is not the point. Every agency has some people who let authority go to their head but that is not true for all employees of an agency. For example, some police officers have beaten and killed innocent people that does not mean that every officer is bad or that the whole department is bad. That is what I mean by broad statements.
Most people are distracted by other issues to take this into account. And the government will grow even more abusive until the voters turn it around.
That is an interesting statement taken with a previous statement.
Every study ever made demonstrates very explicitly how authority is abused. It's a very natural tendency, even with the best of characters. It's a gimme.
So if the voters put other people into power they will automatically be corrupted by the power and we will be right back where we started. How does that fix things?
There are approximately 76000 aircraft departures in the US every day. 76000*365= 27,740,000. 3,700/27,740,000=.00013. So 0.013% of flights have reported a laser strike and no aircraft have been downed. It would seem that the FAA need to look at the definition of epidemic.
Try looking at this from a logical rather than emotional point of view.
Government is guilty of abusing its authority and it will continue to do so until we change it.
Government is not a single entity therefore blanket statements like this are patently false. If one replaces the word "government" with "some government agencies", some government personnel", "some elected officials", etc then you may have something. Labelling all governments as abusing authority is much too broad.
Transparency is not a panacea. No one has the time to know and understand everything every government agency does. Do you want every email to or from every government employee, every phone call recorded, every meeting videoed, every document on line? Do you realize how much information that is? There are also times when transparency is bad. Gathering information on a suspect for example. If it was known the suspect is being watched they would do no crimes but we can not watch suspects forever.
If you have an issue with specific actions of specific departments then say that and come up with a solution. It is very easy to use broad nebulous terms like "government" and "transparency" but much harder to come up with solutions to the issues. How would you plan to change government? Hint: More transparency is a goal not a plan.
There is an interesting catch 22 here. If the government needs to gather information on someone through a properly authorized wiretap they must keep the wiretap secret. For the government to be transparent it must make public all wiretaps. See the problem. It is the same as raising the requirements for a search warrant; if one needs proof to get a search warrant it will never happen because one needs a search warrant to get the proof.
Secondly, if government has no authority then they can not govern as they do not have the authority to do so?
The issue is that it is not some nebulous concept called "government" that is the issue. It is the people that run the government. If power is abused then fire the people and get better ones. The government is given authority because it is needed to get work done.
Blanket statements like "the government is quite guilty of abusing its authority over and over again with no incentive to act otherwise." fail at the lowest level. It seems that you assume "government" is one person who never changes. Government is millions people who have differing agendas. Just because a few people in one government agency abuse their authority does not mean all governments agencies everywhere automatically abuse their authority. "Government" is not homogeneous; It changes depending on country, who is in power, and who is employed.
As for incentive, there is a very powerful one; getting re-elected. Abuse of power has been instrumental in the defeat of many parties.
Could the delay in production be related to an impossible filming schedule on a film that has not even been written yet? Could the request to raise the subsidy be in response to Australia's increase in their subsidies? Excellent FUD and conspiracy theories? When one hears hoof beats think horses not zebras. There is usuall a much simpler explanation to things that do not incluse conspiracies.
The authorities should have to prove their innocence, or they should lose their authority.
Prove that you are not a serial killer. Prove you do not rape women. Prove you do not rob banks. A negative is almost impossible to prove. The government has the same "assumption of innocence" as a person. One needs to prove that something happens not prove that something didn't.
Tell me this. Why was it necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to give the government power to prohibit alcohol, which was then repealed... but it is not necessary to apply the exact same process to different substances?
It was not necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. They could have done it by passing a law. They probably did it by amendment because it was harder to do at the time and harder to change afterwards. A simple law can be passed and repealed at any time; constitutional amendments are much more difficult. In fact there were many state laws prohibiting alcohol.
Stress is caused by the difference between what is happening and what one thinks should be happening. In this case, the main stress is caused by spending money and time on a case where you may be ruled against (though I do not see how). Along the way there will be ups and downs as things slowly move forward. There needs to me no stress what so ever. Here are a couple of ways to look at this situation; 1. I am spending hard earned money to prove that the lawsuit is invalid and I will come out victorious. I may loose and all that money will be wasted. 2. I am spending money to prove my case to the best of my ability. I may win or I may loose but the money is gone and there is nothing I can do about it. In the first instance one is focused on the uncertain outcome. That causes stress as the possible outcomes change. In the second instance one is focused on the process which causes much less stress. When the question of "Did I do the right thing?" comes up, and it will, just say "I did what I did to the best of my ability" and the stress will melt.
Why did the US embargo Japan? Perhaps little things like the Rape of Nanking. The embargo was pressure on Japan to stop their slaughter of Chinese civilians. Don't they teach the whys along with the whats any more?
When my mother in law picks up the phone, she doesn't know any of the details of how her voice goes down that wire, or is switched, or amplified, put on microwaves, etc... but she still doesn't think anyone from the government has any business at all listening without a warrant.
The difference is that your grandmother did not net up the wireless hub and she did not select that phone line from a number of available ones (even though it was not encrypted). A standard phone line is not"readily accessible to the general public". It requires physically tapping into the lines.
Intent is meaningless in privacy issues. I could stand at a corner shouting down the street with the intent of my friend hearing. The fact that everyone else can hear it too is irrelevant to my intent. If one's intent is to communicate privately over wireless then encrypt it.
In the end, if one chooses an unencrypted wireless connection than one is broadcasting to everyone.
Any adult, given enough facts as presented by both sides, should be able to come to a conclusion as to guilty or innocent.
When the facts are written in legalese, like patent documents, it is easy for the average person to become confused and ignore that evidence. This case was even worse in that the foreman was a self described "expert" and the rest of the jury deferred to his judgement. In effect, this was not a decision of 12 members of a jury but a decision of one expert convincing 11 non-experts.
If it required an in-depth knowledge of the law, we would only have lawyers for jurors, and I think we can all agree that's not a great idea
That is precisely what one gets in a trial by judge. Lawyers who do not have a stake in the outcome of a case can be very impartial and in complex cases like patent law knowledge is the key. It takes years to learn patent law. Do you really think that anyone can absorb all that information in a few weeks of trial? How much of the nuances are lost due to information overload?
The more in-depth knowledge one has on a topic, the less likely you are to get a consensus and the less likely you are to be able to look at a case objectively.
That is precisely the issue in this situation. The jury foreman was well versed in patent law as viewed by a patent holder. When technical questions arose the jury took the foreman's advice instead of deciding on their own or asking the judge question. Legal definitions and complex laws such as patent law are difficult at best. 700 questions is a huge number in a legal case. It take a lot of brain power to keep them straight. Most of the people in this group are well above average intelligence and we have issues dealing with these subjects. Do you really think that someone with an IQ of 90 would have fewer issues?
I wonder how well the DEET worked after "encapsulating the DEET within a hydrogel". Wouldn't that mean that the DEET could not get to the air and deter flies?
When one adds a lot of other data to the 30 years of satellite data the observation period extends. The issue is that the original post only looked at the last 30 years. I did not say that there was no global warming. I said that a 30 year observation period is not long enough to say that there is significant record. It is valid to add the 30 years of satellite data to the hundreds of years of core data and come to a conclusion. It is not valid to just look at the last 30 years and come to a conclusion about what happen over the last few thousand years.
I agree that Ice cores and other proxy data show more information but that is not what we are talking about. A 30 year period is far from "ever" and that is what the article is about.
Core sample information is valid because it spans a long time period. Satellite photography spans only 30 years and is not valid in gauging climate change which take place over centuries. Extending a 30 year period into "ever" is similar to sticking you hand out the window for 30 seconds, feeling no rain and saying" we are in a drought". There may well be a drought but a 30 second observation is not evidence of a drought. Similarly, a 30 year observation of ice change is not evidence of climate change even though climate change is happening.
All I am trying to say you can not say "ever" based on a 30 year observation. You may get closer to 'ever' with core sample but that is a different discussion.
What makes me most skeptical is that there is no mention of this vehicle on the Tata web site. If they are making it one would expect it to be on their web site.
It is funny that you assume I am a denier. I do not deny the conclusion but the method that came to that conclusion. There is plenty of other data that support the presence of global warming. What I am saying is that this "record" is not relevant as the period of observation is too short.
Had the article been about sediment cores and plotting information based on those my statements may be quite different. The observation period for sediment cores is hundreds or thousands of years. That is far different than the 30 years of satellite data.
Are we so jaded that anyone who questions scientific methodology is called a denier?
What I meant was from the information in the satellite photo comparisons the statement "this has never happened before" is not valid. This reminds me of a math joke;
An economist, an engineer and a mathematician are on a train to Glasgow. The economist looks out the window and sees a pasture full of sheep. He says "Wow, all of the sheep on Scotland are black." The engineer look out the windows and says "No, some of the sheep in Scotland are black." The mathematician looks out and says "In Scotland there exists at least one pasture where the sheep are black on at least one side." The mathematician's view is the most correct. There is not interpretation no extrapolation; just a statement of what was actually observed.
that point there is no reason to not assume it to be true for the rest of our current interglacial
There is a very valid reason; that being to never assume anything because that is the line between science and conjecture. Science require proof; not assumptions. Observations are only valid within the time period of the observations. They say nothing about what happened outside that period.
I agree that Ice cores and other proxy data show more information but that is not what we are talking about. A 30 year period is far from "ever" and that is what the article is about.
I am not saying it may not be true but that this method is invalid. This specific record was obtained by comparing satellite photos taken over the last 30 years. As you have stated, boreholes cover several thousands of years and are a valid indicator of long term change. A 30 year record is much to short to prove anything.
This is a prime example of a record low over recorder history. In this case recorded history is only the last 30 years. It does not indicate if there was a lower ice sheet cover in the last 100 years, 1000 years or 10,000 years Climate change is a long term phenomenon and 30 years of climate data is an indication of global warming but something similar could have happened outside of recorded history. Too many people look at the word "record" and interpret it as "this has never happened before" while in this case the true statement is "this had not happened in the last 30 years".
Diagnostic tools should be regulated as they make treatment recommendations. Apps that are basically glorified note pads that happen to record personal medical data like glucose levels should not. If what they replace are regulated they should be regulated.
Ex-Marine Forcibly Held for Psychiatric Evaluation
or
Officials Knew of Ex-Marine's Mental Instability Before Killing Spree and Did Nothing
Personally, I prefer the former. At worst a sane ex-marine goes through a few days of evaluation and is released. At best an ex-marine spiralling down into a psychotic episode gets the help he needs and recovers.
It's too easy to point at discrete chunks of 10's of millions that affect an isolated group than tackle the billions that affect everyone.
In an election year the math is pretty easy. Would one rather do a funding cut that may lose a few thousand votes or another that may lose a few million votes? In most people's lives a telescope is unimportant but health care is very important.
I am not an astronomer but there seems to be a number of new projects that have come on line that may make some facilities obsolete. The new projects have better resolution, precision, etc. Do we need all the installations that may be cut? Can they cut other installations that are not as useful? These are questions I am putting out there as I do not know the answers.
Slashdot Mirror
To paraphrase you post. When it comes to governments accusation = conviction. I don't buy it. Sure one can point to some abuse in every government agency. But that is not the point. Every agency has some people who let authority go to their head but that is not true for all employees of an agency. For example, some police officers have beaten and killed innocent people that does not mean that every officer is bad or that the whole department is bad. That is what I mean by broad statements.
Most people are distracted by other issues to take this into account. And the government will grow even more abusive until the voters turn it around.
That is an interesting statement taken with a previous statement.
Every study ever made demonstrates very explicitly how authority is abused. It's a very natural tendency, even with the best of characters. It's a gimme.
So if the voters put other people into power they will automatically be corrupted by the power and we will be right back where we started. How does that fix things?
There are approximately 76000 aircraft departures in the US every day. 76000*365= 27,740,000. 3,700/27,740,000= .00013. So 0.013% of flights have reported a laser strike and no aircraft have been downed. It would seem that the FAA need to look at the definition of epidemic.
Try looking at this from a logical rather than emotional point of view.
Government is guilty of abusing its authority and it will continue to do so until we change it.
Government is not a single entity therefore blanket statements like this are patently false. If one replaces the word "government" with "some government agencies", some government personnel", "some elected officials", etc then you may have something. Labelling all governments as abusing authority is much too broad.
Transparency is not a panacea. No one has the time to know and understand everything every government agency does. Do you want every email to or from every government employee, every phone call recorded, every meeting videoed, every document on line? Do you realize how much information that is? There are also times when transparency is bad. Gathering information on a suspect for example. If it was known the suspect is being watched they would do no crimes but we can not watch suspects forever.
If you have an issue with specific actions of specific departments then say that and come up with a solution. It is very easy to use broad nebulous terms like "government" and "transparency" but much harder to come up with solutions to the issues. How would you plan to change government? Hint: More transparency is a goal not a plan.
There is an interesting catch 22 here. If the government needs to gather information on someone through a properly authorized wiretap they must keep the wiretap secret. For the government to be transparent it must make public all wiretaps. See the problem. It is the same as raising the requirements for a search warrant; if one needs proof to get a search warrant it will never happen because one needs a search warrant to get the proof.
Secondly, if government has no authority then they can not govern as they do not have the authority to do so?
The issue is that it is not some nebulous concept called "government" that is the issue. It is the people that run the government. If power is abused then fire the people and get better ones. The government is given authority because it is needed to get work done.
Blanket statements like "the government is quite guilty of abusing its authority over and over again with no incentive to act otherwise." fail at the lowest level. It seems that you assume "government" is one person who never changes. Government is millions people who have differing agendas. Just because a few people in one government agency abuse their authority does not mean all governments agencies everywhere automatically abuse their authority. "Government" is not homogeneous; It changes depending on country, who is in power, and who is employed.
As for incentive, there is a very powerful one; getting re-elected. Abuse of power has been instrumental in the defeat of many parties.
Could the delay in production be related to an impossible filming schedule on a film that has not even been written yet?
Could the request to raise the subsidy be in response to Australia's increase in their subsidies?
Excellent FUD and conspiracy theories? When one hears hoof beats think horses not zebras. There is usuall a much simpler explanation to things that do not incluse conspiracies.
The authorities should have to prove their innocence, or they should lose their authority.
Prove that you are not a serial killer. Prove you do not rape women. Prove you do not rob banks. A negative is almost impossible to prove. The government has the same "assumption of innocence" as a person. One needs to prove that something happens not prove that something didn't.
Tell me this. Why was it necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to give the government power to prohibit alcohol, which was then repealed... but it is not necessary to apply the exact same process to different substances?
It was not necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. They could have done it by passing a law. They probably did it by amendment because it was harder to do at the time and harder to change afterwards. A simple law can be passed and repealed at any time; constitutional amendments are much more difficult. In fact there were many state laws prohibiting alcohol.
Stress is caused by the difference between what is happening and what one thinks should be happening. In this case, the main stress is caused by spending money and time on a case where you may be ruled against (though I do not see how). Along the way there will be ups and downs as things slowly move forward. There needs to me no stress what so ever.
Here are a couple of ways to look at this situation;
1. I am spending hard earned money to prove that the lawsuit is invalid and I will come out victorious. I may loose and all that money will be wasted.
2. I am spending money to prove my case to the best of my ability. I may win or I may loose but the money is gone and there is nothing I can do about it.
In the first instance one is focused on the uncertain outcome. That causes stress as the possible outcomes change. In the second instance one is focused on the process which causes much less stress. When the question of "Did I do the right thing?" comes up, and it will, just say "I did what I did to the best of my ability" and the stress will melt.
Why did the US embargo Japan? Perhaps little things like the Rape of Nanking. The embargo was pressure on Japan to stop their slaughter of Chinese civilians. Don't they teach the whys along with the whats any more?
When my mother in law picks up the phone, she doesn't know any of the details of how her voice goes down that wire, or is switched, or amplified, put on microwaves, etc... but she still doesn't think anyone from the government has any business at all listening without a warrant.
The difference is that your grandmother did not net up the wireless hub and she did not select that phone line from a number of available ones (even though it was not encrypted). A standard phone line is not"readily accessible to the general public". It requires physically tapping into the lines.
Intent is meaningless in privacy issues. I could stand at a corner shouting down the street with the intent of my friend hearing. The fact that everyone else can hear it too is irrelevant to my intent. If one's intent is to communicate privately over wireless then encrypt it.
In the end, if one chooses an unencrypted wireless connection than one is broadcasting to everyone.
Any adult, given enough facts as presented by both sides, should be able to come to a conclusion as to guilty or innocent.
When the facts are written in legalese, like patent documents, it is easy for the average person to become confused and ignore that evidence. This case was even worse in that the foreman was a self described "expert" and the rest of the jury deferred to his judgement. In effect, this was not a decision of 12 members of a jury but a decision of one expert convincing 11 non-experts.
If it required an in-depth knowledge of the law, we would only have lawyers for jurors, and I think we can all agree that's not a great idea
That is precisely what one gets in a trial by judge. Lawyers who do not have a stake in the outcome of a case can be very impartial and in complex cases like patent law knowledge is the key. It takes years to learn patent law. Do you really think that anyone can absorb all that information in a few weeks of trial? How much of the nuances are lost due to information overload?
The more in-depth knowledge one has on a topic, the less likely you are to get a consensus and the less likely you are to be able to look at a case objectively.
That is precisely the issue in this situation. The jury foreman was well versed in patent law as viewed by a patent holder. When technical questions arose the jury took the foreman's advice instead of deciding on their own or asking the judge question. Legal definitions and complex laws such as patent law are difficult at best. 700 questions is a huge number in a legal case. It take a lot of brain power to keep them straight. Most of the people in this group are well above average intelligence and we have issues dealing with these subjects. Do you really think that someone with an IQ of 90 would have fewer issues?
Patent law is too complex for the average person.
I wonder how well the DEET worked after "encapsulating the DEET within a hydrogel". Wouldn't that mean that the DEET could not get to the air and deter flies?
When one adds a lot of other data to the 30 years of satellite data the observation period extends. The issue is that the original post only looked at the last 30 years. I did not say that there was no global warming. I said that a 30 year observation period is not long enough to say that there is significant record. It is valid to add the 30 years of satellite data to the hundreds of years of core data and come to a conclusion. It is not valid to just look at the last 30 years and come to a conclusion about what happen over the last few thousand years.
Did you read the last line of my post?
I agree that Ice cores and other proxy data show more information but that is not what we are talking about. A 30 year period is far from "ever" and that is what the article is about.
Core sample information is valid because it spans a long time period. Satellite photography spans only 30 years and is not valid in gauging climate change which take place over centuries.
Extending a 30 year period into "ever" is similar to sticking you hand out the window for 30 seconds, feeling no rain and saying" we are in a drought". There may well be a drought but a 30 second observation is not evidence of a drought. Similarly, a 30 year observation of ice change is not evidence of climate change even though climate change is happening.
All I am trying to say you can not say "ever" based on a 30 year observation. You may get closer to 'ever' with core sample but that is a different discussion.
What makes me most skeptical is that there is no mention of this vehicle on the Tata web site. If they are making it one would expect it to be on their web site.
It is funny that you assume I am a denier. I do not deny the conclusion but the method that came to that conclusion. There is plenty of other data that support the presence of global warming. What I am saying is that this "record" is not relevant as the period of observation is too short.
Had the article been about sediment cores and plotting information based on those my statements may be quite different. The observation period for sediment cores is hundreds or thousands of years. That is far different than the 30 years of satellite data.
Are we so jaded that anyone who questions scientific methodology is called a denier?
What I meant was from the information in the satellite photo comparisons the statement "this has never happened before" is not valid. This reminds me of a math joke;
An economist, an engineer and a mathematician are on a train to Glasgow. The economist looks out the window and sees a pasture full of sheep. He says "Wow, all of the sheep on Scotland are black." The engineer look out the windows and says "No, some of the sheep in Scotland are black." The mathematician looks out and says "In Scotland there exists at least one pasture where the sheep are black on at least one side." The mathematician's view is the most correct. There is not interpretation no extrapolation; just a statement of what was actually observed.
that point there is no reason to not assume it to be true for the rest of our current interglacial
There is a very valid reason; that being to never assume anything because that is the line between science and conjecture. Science require proof; not assumptions. Observations are only valid within the time period of the observations. They say nothing about what happened outside that period.
I agree that Ice cores and other proxy data show more information but that is not what we are talking about. A 30 year period is far from "ever" and that is what the article is about.
I am not saying it may not be true but that this method is invalid. This specific record was obtained by comparing satellite photos taken over the last 30 years. As you have stated, boreholes cover several thousands of years and are a valid indicator of long term change. A 30 year record is much to short to prove anything.
This is a prime example of a record low over recorder history. In this case recorded history is only the last 30 years. It does not indicate if there was a lower ice sheet cover in the last 100 years, 1000 years or 10,000 years Climate change is a long term phenomenon and 30 years of climate data is an indication of global warming but something similar could have happened outside of recorded history. Too many people look at the word "record" and interpret it as "this has never happened before" while in this case the true statement is "this had not happened in the last 30 years".
But diagnostic tools ... diagnose.
Diagnostic tools should be regulated as they make treatment recommendations. Apps that are basically glorified note pads that happen to record personal medical data like glucose levels should not. If what they replace are regulated they should be regulated.
What area do you live in? There could be valid reasons.
You pick the headline you prefer;
Ex-Marine Forcibly Held for Psychiatric Evaluation
or
Officials Knew of Ex-Marine's Mental Instability Before Killing Spree and Did Nothing
Personally, I prefer the former. At worst a sane ex-marine goes through a few days of evaluation and is released. At best an ex-marine spiralling down into a psychotic episode gets the help he needs and recovers.
It's too easy to point at discrete chunks of 10's of millions that affect an isolated group than tackle the billions that affect everyone.
In an election year the math is pretty easy. Would one rather do a funding cut that may lose a few thousand votes or another that may lose a few million votes? In most people's lives a telescope is unimportant but health care is very important.
I am not an astronomer but there seems to be a number of new projects that have come on line that may make some facilities obsolete. The new projects have better resolution, precision, etc. Do we need all the installations that may be cut? Can they cut other installations that are not as useful? These are questions I am putting out there as I do not know the answers.