Then perhaps they should consider adopting a standard that can adhere to HIPPA privacy rules, and provide a way to re-verify the analysis. Otherwise the research half of the fMRI scans are utilizing HIPAA as a shield to protect their conclusions. I work in Study Research that has to adhere to HIPAA rules, and there is quite a bit that can be included in a dataset sanitized of identity information. Otherwise no one would have their study retracted due to fraud because they could hide the dataset from scrutiny.
The researchers used published fMRI results, and along the way they swipe the fMRI community for their “lamentable archiving and data-sharing practices” that prevent most of the discipline's body of work being re-analysed.
So the raw data isn't being saved so that someone else can independently verify the results. No checking the computers math, no checking the researchers settings on the machine. Just blanket trust for the people and the machine, and purging of any way of poking holes in someones findings. Even if this wasn't caused by a software bug the lack of archiving the raw dataset so that it can be rerun when software improvements are made is just infuriating.
Sure hacking my computer might sound Orwellian. However, in this case it was a Child Porn Tor site that had been busted. The site was left up, but with malware on the site. This is the equivalent of the cops allowing an illegal drug shop to stay open and just put GPS devices in all the Weed they sell. Doesn't sound like the Cops are allowed to hack you just because you have a PC once your read a bit of the story past the summery.
I just want to know what level of crazy this person really was. Did he really have a novel piece of code, and just didn't know how to deal with the loss. Or are we dealing with a nutcase who saw a fellow student use a linked list the same way he did, and assumed that they must have gotten it from the teacher.
One pushes a narrative they want the other pushes a narrative they'd rather not have. Narrative A) Push any Anti Trump Message. Narrative B) Suppress any message showing strained relationships between the US and Russia. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out which platform is the source of both Narratives.
Sorry but they've assumed that Men didn't watch Sex in the City. They're using "Sailormoon is for Girls" logic. Sorry, but 55 year old men may actually have been a part of their actual audiance. Not like I believe DailyMail, but I certainly don't believe a "study" that didn't even bother to figure out the actual viewership of Sex in the City and rather assumed that Men didn't watch it.
SAT scores still show males performing better at math. This PISA test appears to only have data on kids at the age of 15. Which is unfortunate because that means the vast majority of girls are done with Puberty at 14, but a significant portion of boys that started puberty at 14 are sill in stupid puberty stage. Maybe if this test was done on a range of age groups and displayed the same gap, but no it's just 15 year old kids.
By your logic Incentivising Murder wouldn't be wrong. Giving people Money, incentive, for murder is wrong. Giving people Sex, incentive, for murder is wrong. Giving people Candy, incentive, for murder is wrong. And giving people a Hug, incentive, for murder is wrong. Just because the Murderer is responsible for their own actions doesn't make the person who incentivised them not in some way responsible.
If we waited to use this kind of technology for the next 9/11 style attack then how do you even know that it works? Testing? Sure lets trust that it works in the perfect ideal test scenario. From my perspective it's more interesting that this tech was used in a real world condition against a relativity easy target to track, and failed. If it failed against this one guy, it'll have a good chance at failing in a more serious condition where the target is actively avoiding the system. If the failure really was due to the system being inept then maybe it should be scrapped, not because it's 'unethical', but because it doesn't really work causing us to rely on it in a serious scenario where it wont work.
Sorry, but using the logic I presented you'd have to go with what was already defined by Cantor. Both sets are countable thus they are equal. There are exactly the same number of Prime Numbers as there are Natural Numbers. For your assertion to be true you'd have to assume that Space was an Uncountable Infinite like Real Numbers and weather or not Space is like that or now is still debated between Finitists, and Infinitiests. As for expecting logic from Adams, I did not. I was pointing out why you thinking he did a good job in describing the problem was in error. As for people who've actually described the problem aptly I'd cite Fermi, but he leaves it with a paradox meaning most of our pessimistic assumptions must be wrong, but which ones are wrong is always the problem.
Douglas Adams logic is simply a fail. Just Substitute Worlds for Numbers, and inhabited worlds with Prime Numbers.
“It is known that there are an infinite number of Numbers... However, not every one of them is Prime. Therefore, there must be a finite number of Prime Numbers... From this it follows that the population of Prime Numbers is also zero, and that any Prime Number you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."
The Truth is there is an Infinite Number of Prime Numbers in spite of there being space between them. The question really is whether or not the odds of intelligent life is comparable to Prime Number, or to the occurrence of a single solitary number. Also the 1 divided by Infinite is infinitesimal not nothing as Adams asserts assuming you're not a blaspheming finitist. And if you are a blasphemer 1 divided my infinite is nonsensical.
If they don't follow the law and they take you to court there would be a good chance their evidence would get thrown out. Now if you think they'll secret you off to a black sight then maybe you need to consider playing spy better.
I'm being an Honest Dissenter. As for "Citing Myself" I take it you're incapable of reading the post. I cited NASA for the Stratospheric Optical Depth, NOAA for the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset so that Anyone could pull the data for themselves, NASA's 2008 report on Solar Activity along with their Prediction that Cycle 24 would be unusually strong. The US Geological Survey from 1949 to note for anyone bold enough to pull the evaporation data prior to 1950 would see an anomaly cause by a bad collection practice that the report addressed. Stanford for their dataset dealing with the Suns Magnetic Strength. And finally Myself once for a graph of the evaporation effect that you could render yourself with the GHCN dataset, but that since you're too lazy to even read you couldn't even figure that out.
Your comment proves the point entirely. Rather than argue with facts and data of which I've presented plenty had you read the thread. Rather, you'd resort to jailing of dissenters. It's no surprise when that's your position that people with the data showing the problem remain silent rather than place their live, careers, and family in the wake of your wrath over reason.
All that is true, but there’s a further point worth making: climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial deals with the deaths of millions in the past, which it did nothing to cause, however morally odious it surely is. Global warming denial deals with the deaths of millions in the future, which it helps to cause, by crippling efforts to prevent them. And that’s something much worse, as is reflected in law: It’s not a crime to lie about murders in the past, except to hinder a police investigation, or prosecution; but it is a crime to tell enabling lies about future murders—it’s called conspiracy to commit murder.
I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide – any genocide – coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.
This behavior has only encouraged people to use it for just asking about why this evaporation data didn't change prior to 2010.
And publish where? No reputable journal would risk the fight given the climate in science because it's "settled". I've sited far more than just myself, but I suppose actually reading the thread you're responding rather than the first post would be a bit much.
So you don't care about a decade long series of heat waves that caused the dust bowl. Which resulted is massive repeated crop failures that then resulted in the Great Depression. If your "models" conveniently ignore all data prior to 1960 so that they don't have to explain an actual disaster what credit should be given to predicting worse events in the future? As for your referenced "data". I didn't say there wasn't more CO2, and the chart from the Mauna Loa Observatory is cute. How about the Optical Depth data that shows the SO2 light reflection that is relevant to what I claimed, and to what the article claims to have found. Or how about the GHCN dataset which if you dive in and pull out the Precipitation, and Evaporation you have some interesting problem with Global Warming. One 'Claim' from Global Warming is the increase in heat increases evaporation, increasing humidity, thus increasing rain and Precipitation. The problem is you get this nice little graph that I'm sure you're going to ignore because all these lovely scientists cant possibly be wrong. It doesn't even matter to you that NASA predicted that cycle 24 would be particularly bad. If my analysis is correct, which it is, and nasa's prediction was correct, which it was, then there is a serious problem. It means that the Pan Evaporation mesurments were sensitive enough to pick up a nasty level of solar activity, but not sensitive enough to pick up your phantom global warming since 1950 when the US Geologic Survey fine tuned the measurement process because they needed to know how much evaporated off of lake mead that the prior data was so variant it was unusable. If I'm right, which I am, then that means Global warming from 1950 to 2010 is nothing compared to what the CME's have been doing to us. And this all brought to you by the Sun's northern field deciding to take some time off. So yea your 25% increase in overall CO2 since 1960 is pretty meaningless in the scope of the overall data because if it was It should have moved the evaporation long before 2010.
No, I've actually downloaded and Processed the entire GHCN dataset from NOAA. My view has Zero to do with anyone elses published opinion. It's convenient for you to claim that I'm just parroting someone else, but I'm not.
I haven't cherry picked a single thing. I've seen global warming advocated cherry pick around the evaporation data. It's not convenient because the results are in stark contradiction with several global warming claims. Oh it's flat from 1950 to 2010 so it can't show any global warming, all while totally ignoring that it did go up and follow the last solar cycle along with the Rain following the same solar cycle pattern. But no I must be cherry picking by Including data and you can't be cherry picking by excluding data.
When you take in the Heat Waves of the 30's we're no where near that bad in the US, and from the 60's to 1991 had a significant effect of global cooling due to a fairly large amount of SO2 in the Stratosphere due to a series of volcanic eruptions. Is this an improvement due to Global Warming CO2 or an improvement due to a lack of SO2 eruptions into the Stratosphere. I can go into why the rain has spontaneously increased since about 2010 due to an enhanced evaporation effect caused by the last solar cycle that was made possible by the Suns Northern field going wonky. This was in part predicted by NASA when they started detecting Northern polarity CME's ripping though the Magnetic field as if they were Southern CME's back in 2008. But no just because I have facts on my side I get labeled the Equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
It's convenient that it cuts out before it can go behind or in front of anything to prove your hypothesis. It's also sitting at the edge of the Earths horizon with no visible star field to again prove your hypothesis. Now what makes it seem like it's probably some light trick is that if it was at the horizon it would be huge, and visible from Earth. It also has an abrupt bounce in it at the 35 to 36 second mark that an object of that size wouldn't be able to do unless it was a trick of the light like a prim being jostled.
I'm fine with the courts restricting someones internet access due to excessive piracy, or other internet related crimes. I'm not so fine with someone doing that with outside of Due Process. The MPAA, and other has send DMCA take down notices to the IP address of Printers.
The only attention it gets is 'You're just like Holocaust deniers, and all these other scientists can't possibly be wrong'. Any journal publishing it would get tossed into the discredited journals leaving only discredited journals as my only publishing option. If you personally want to see the data I can point you at it. But I'm not impressed with science breaking Godwin's law whenever it gets brought up.
Slashdot Mirror
Then perhaps they should consider adopting a standard that can adhere to HIPPA privacy rules, and provide a way to re-verify the analysis. Otherwise the research half of the fMRI scans are utilizing HIPAA as a shield to protect their conclusions. I work in Study Research that has to adhere to HIPAA rules, and there is quite a bit that can be included in a dataset sanitized of identity information. Otherwise no one would have their study retracted due to fraud because they could hide the dataset from scrutiny.
The researchers used published fMRI results, and along the way they swipe the fMRI community for their “lamentable archiving and data-sharing practices” that prevent most of the discipline's body of work being re-analysed.
So the raw data isn't being saved so that someone else can independently verify the results. No checking the computers math, no checking the researchers settings on the machine. Just blanket trust for the people and the machine, and purging of any way of poking holes in someones findings. Even if this wasn't caused by a software bug the lack of archiving the raw dataset so that it can be rerun when software improvements are made is just infuriating.
Sure hacking my computer might sound Orwellian. However, in this case it was a Child Porn Tor site that had been busted. The site was left up, but with malware on the site. This is the equivalent of the cops allowing an illegal drug shop to stay open and just put GPS devices in all the Weed they sell. Doesn't sound like the Cops are allowed to hack you just because you have a PC once your read a bit of the story past the summery.
Why would I want Tomato Juice in my IP?
I just want to know what level of crazy this person really was. Did he really have a novel piece of code, and just didn't know how to deal with the loss. Or are we dealing with a nutcase who saw a fellow student use a linked list the same way he did, and assumed that they must have gotten it from the teacher.
One pushes a narrative they want the other pushes a narrative they'd rather not have. Narrative A) Push any Anti Trump Message. Narrative B) Suppress any message showing strained relationships between the US and Russia. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out which platform is the source of both Narratives.
Same person who gets to decide it in the US. Mr. Z
Sorry but they've assumed that Men didn't watch Sex in the City. They're using "Sailormoon is for Girls" logic. Sorry, but 55 year old men may actually have been a part of their actual audiance. Not like I believe DailyMail, but I certainly don't believe a "study" that didn't even bother to figure out the actual viewership of Sex in the City and rather assumed that Men didn't watch it.
SAT scores still show males performing better at math. This PISA test appears to only have data on kids at the age of 15. Which is unfortunate because that means the vast majority of girls are done with Puberty at 14, but a significant portion of boys that started puberty at 14 are sill in stupid puberty stage. Maybe if this test was done on a range of age groups and displayed the same gap, but no it's just 15 year old kids.
I think it's because he uttered blasphemy against SSH.
By your logic Incentivising Murder wouldn't be wrong. Giving people Money, incentive, for murder is wrong. Giving people Sex, incentive, for murder is wrong. Giving people Candy, incentive, for murder is wrong. And giving people a Hug, incentive, for murder is wrong. Just because the Murderer is responsible for their own actions doesn't make the person who incentivised them not in some way responsible.
If we waited to use this kind of technology for the next 9/11 style attack then how do you even know that it works? Testing? Sure lets trust that it works in the perfect ideal test scenario. From my perspective it's more interesting that this tech was used in a real world condition against a relativity easy target to track, and failed. If it failed against this one guy, it'll have a good chance at failing in a more serious condition where the target is actively avoiding the system. If the failure really was due to the system being inept then maybe it should be scrapped, not because it's 'unethical', but because it doesn't really work causing us to rely on it in a serious scenario where it wont work.
Sorry, but using the logic I presented you'd have to go with what was already defined by Cantor. Both sets are countable thus they are equal. There are exactly the same number of Prime Numbers as there are Natural Numbers. For your assertion to be true you'd have to assume that Space was an Uncountable Infinite like Real Numbers and weather or not Space is like that or now is still debated between Finitists, and Infinitiests. As for expecting logic from Adams, I did not. I was pointing out why you thinking he did a good job in describing the problem was in error. As for people who've actually described the problem aptly I'd cite Fermi, but he leaves it with a paradox meaning most of our pessimistic assumptions must be wrong, but which ones are wrong is always the problem.
“It is known that there are an infinite number of Numbers... However, not every one of them is Prime. Therefore, there must be a finite number of Prime Numbers... From this it follows that the population of Prime Numbers is also zero, and that any Prime Number you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."
The Truth is there is an Infinite Number of Prime Numbers in spite of there being space between them. The question really is whether or not the odds of intelligent life is comparable to Prime Number, or to the occurrence of a single solitary number. Also the 1 divided by Infinite is infinitesimal not nothing as Adams asserts assuming you're not a blaspheming finitist. And if you are a blasphemer 1 divided my infinite is nonsensical.
If they don't follow the law and they take you to court there would be a good chance their evidence would get thrown out. Now if you think they'll secret you off to a black sight then maybe you need to consider playing spy better.
I'm being an Honest Dissenter. As for "Citing Myself" I take it you're incapable of reading the post. I cited NASA for the Stratospheric Optical Depth, NOAA for the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset so that Anyone could pull the data for themselves, NASA's 2008 report on Solar Activity along with their Prediction that Cycle 24 would be unusually strong. The US Geological Survey from 1949 to note for anyone bold enough to pull the evaporation data prior to 1950 would see an anomaly cause by a bad collection practice that the report addressed. Stanford for their dataset dealing with the Suns Magnetic Strength. And finally Myself once for a graph of the evaporation effect that you could render yourself with the GHCN dataset, but that since you're too lazy to even read you couldn't even figure that out.
Your comment proves the point entirely. Rather than argue with facts and data of which I've presented plenty had you read the thread. Rather, you'd resort to jailing of dissenters. It's no surprise when that's your position that people with the data showing the problem remain silent rather than place their live, careers, and family in the wake of your wrath over reason.
All that is true, but there’s a further point worth making: climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial deals with the deaths of millions in the past, which it did nothing to cause, however morally odious it surely is. Global warming denial deals with the deaths of millions in the future, which it helps to cause, by crippling efforts to prevent them. And that’s something much worse, as is reflected in law: It’s not a crime to lie about murders in the past, except to hinder a police investigation, or prosecution; but it is a crime to tell enabling lies about future murders—it’s called conspiracy to commit murder.
Or
I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide – any genocide – coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.
This behavior has only encouraged people to use it for just asking about why this evaporation data didn't change prior to 2010.
And publish where? No reputable journal would risk the fight given the climate in science because it's "settled". I've sited far more than just myself, but I suppose actually reading the thread you're responding rather than the first post would be a bit much.
So you don't care about a decade long series of heat waves that caused the dust bowl. Which resulted is massive repeated crop failures that then resulted in the Great Depression. If your "models" conveniently ignore all data prior to 1960 so that they don't have to explain an actual disaster what credit should be given to predicting worse events in the future? As for your referenced "data". I didn't say there wasn't more CO2, and the chart from the Mauna Loa Observatory is cute. How about the Optical Depth data that shows the SO2 light reflection that is relevant to what I claimed, and to what the article claims to have found. Or how about the GHCN dataset which if you dive in and pull out the Precipitation, and Evaporation you have some interesting problem with Global Warming. One 'Claim' from Global Warming is the increase in heat increases evaporation, increasing humidity, thus increasing rain and Precipitation. The problem is you get this nice little graph that I'm sure you're going to ignore because all these lovely scientists cant possibly be wrong. It doesn't even matter to you that NASA predicted that cycle 24 would be particularly bad. If my analysis is correct, which it is, and nasa's prediction was correct, which it was, then there is a serious problem. It means that the Pan Evaporation mesurments were sensitive enough to pick up a nasty level of solar activity, but not sensitive enough to pick up your phantom global warming since 1950 when the US Geologic Survey fine tuned the measurement process because they needed to know how much evaporated off of lake mead that the prior data was so variant it was unusable. If I'm right, which I am, then that means Global warming from 1950 to 2010 is nothing compared to what the CME's have been doing to us. And this all brought to you by the Sun's northern field deciding to take some time off. So yea your 25% increase in overall CO2 since 1960 is pretty meaningless in the scope of the overall data because if it was It should have moved the evaporation long before 2010.
No, I've actually downloaded and Processed the entire GHCN dataset from NOAA. My view has Zero to do with anyone elses published opinion. It's convenient for you to claim that I'm just parroting someone else, but I'm not.
I haven't cherry picked a single thing. I've seen global warming advocated cherry pick around the evaporation data. It's not convenient because the results are in stark contradiction with several global warming claims. Oh it's flat from 1950 to 2010 so it can't show any global warming, all while totally ignoring that it did go up and follow the last solar cycle along with the Rain following the same solar cycle pattern. But no I must be cherry picking by Including data and you can't be cherry picking by excluding data.
When you take in the Heat Waves of the 30's we're no where near that bad in the US, and from the 60's to 1991 had a significant effect of global cooling due to a fairly large amount of SO2 in the Stratosphere due to a series of volcanic eruptions. Is this an improvement due to Global Warming CO2 or an improvement due to a lack of SO2 eruptions into the Stratosphere. I can go into why the rain has spontaneously increased since about 2010 due to an enhanced evaporation effect caused by the last solar cycle that was made possible by the Suns Northern field going wonky. This was in part predicted by NASA when they started detecting Northern polarity CME's ripping though the Magnetic field as if they were Southern CME's back in 2008. But no just because I have facts on my side I get labeled the Equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
It's convenient that it cuts out before it can go behind or in front of anything to prove your hypothesis. It's also sitting at the edge of the Earths horizon with no visible star field to again prove your hypothesis. Now what makes it seem like it's probably some light trick is that if it was at the horizon it would be huge, and visible from Earth. It also has an abrupt bounce in it at the 35 to 36 second mark that an object of that size wouldn't be able to do unless it was a trick of the light like a prim being jostled.
I'm fine with the courts restricting someones internet access due to excessive piracy, or other internet related crimes. I'm not so fine with someone doing that with outside of Due Process. The MPAA, and other has send DMCA take down notices to the IP address of Printers.
The only attention it gets is 'You're just like Holocaust deniers, and all these other scientists can't possibly be wrong'. Any journal publishing it would get tossed into the discredited journals leaving only discredited journals as my only publishing option. If you personally want to see the data I can point you at it. But I'm not impressed with science breaking Godwin's law whenever it gets brought up.