1. It wasn't just MM disputing the "hockey stick" - a independent panel of statistics experts reporting to Congress examined it, Mann's work, and found that MM were the ones in the right.
Uhh, if you're talking about the National Research Council panel, the BBC seems to take the exact opposite stance on the results. Are you saying the BBC is lying? Or are you talking about a different panel?
Just on this point, the real issue is that the results from the NRC *both* affirmed Mann's results, while at the same time echoing some of MM's criticisms. But the key point is this: Mann's results we *not* refuted by the panel (at least if the BBC article is to be believed, I haven't actually gone through the panel's results).
1. It wasn't just MM disputing the "hockey stick" - a independent panel of statistics experts reporting to Congress examined it, Mann's work, and found that MM were the ones in the right.
Uhh, if you're talking about the National Research Council panel, the BBC seems to take the exact opposite stance on the results. Are you saying the BBC is lying? Or are you talking about a different panel?
2. The "hockey stick" was found to be the result of faulty mathematics...by people who specialize in mathematics. That makes them experts in their fields.
If that's true, great. But the validity of those results seems to be in question. Some claim the math is bad. Others don't.
3. If Mann is so right, why doesn't his model stand up to scrutiny?
Way to beg the question. You assume the model doesn't stand up to scrutiny, yet I've already provided an article that claims it does. Are you right, or am I?
Let me put it this way - Mann and company are hiding and misrepresenting data and methodologies
According to you. Citations, please?
MM are pointing out there is a problem, making all of their work publicly available, and have received independent verification that their math is correct from experts in statistics and statistical analysis.
I've already provided at least one citation that indicates otherwise, a citation not produced by Mann, et al. I'm sure I could dig up others.
So, who's right?
Who do you find more trustworthy?
Well, the denialists:
a) make the false assumption that the entire scientific community is a monolithic, closed clique that can't possibly be trusted, b) are blinded by the romantic notion that the loan maverick is more trustworthy than the community (what I like to call Galileo syndrome) c) are populated by those with a clear vested interest in finding AGW false (eg, the fossil fuel industry) d) like to trot out old and dead arguments that have been long refuted, a tendency that's disturbingly mirrored in the Intelligent Design community.
Given this, I tend toward siding with the scientists, flawed as they may be. But, of course, that's a bias in an of itself (and one I will happily admit to).
Oh, I see. So some dude with a BSc in Math claims to find a hole in the data, and when the original authors rebut his claims... you just assume MM was right (as opposed to, say, poking holes in the rebuttal).
If you can not say with any sort of certainty that it will be 20-22 next week on friday. How am I supposed to take your word for it that it is going to be X degrees warmer/cooler next CENTURY?
I can tell you, right now, today, that the temperature six months from now will be warmer than the temperature today. Why? Because what you're talking about is weather, and it's short-term chaotic. What the climate science community is talking about is climate. They deal with long term trends, where that short-term noise is factored out. The fact you don't understand the difference speaks to your lack of education in science and statistics.
Here is a theory maybe its just warmer because there have been less volcano? Or maybe something in the earths core has started emitting more heat? Or maybe the sun is giving off more solar radiation (on its cycle)? There are tons of these things which can change the weather.
And, believe it or not, climate scientists have looked at them all. Yes, it's true... you aren't actually smarter than the entire world's climate science community. And bad news: none of them can account for the level of climate change that's been observed. In just the last 50 years there's been a staggering increase in global temperatures, and none of those factors that you cited can account for them.
I just am saying that the models are mostly based on data that is being fudged around to fit a particular agenda.
According to whom? Have you looked at the models? Examined the data? And if you're so sure, why haven't you written a peer reviewed article refuting these models you've apparently debunked? I'm sure the scientific community would appreciate it.
Even Einstein did this he had his great 'cosmological constant'. As he was trying to fudge his theory to fit his world view. He called it one of his greatest mistakes.
Ummm, that wasn't a "fudge factor". That was a valid term in the equations he produced. The only "fudge" was to assume the value of that constant was zero. Ironically, in that sense, he got it wrong: Go look at cosmic expansion, specifically the fact that it's accelerating. This just happens to coincide with a positive value for that constant you're happily deriding.
So... you say, given that two of the most important software companies in the world are collaborating, how could it be a paranoid rambling to distrust them?
Oh, I don't know... because the most important software companies in the world collaborating gave us *UNIX* (or, I suppose I should say POSIX), among other things.
Trust me, you're paranoid. Companies working together to agree to an interoperable standard is a *good* thing, not a "[concentration] of power".
It does indeed. It replaces the video with a clickable icon, so that you can interactively re-enable flash videos easily. Much better than having to go add exceptions in NoScript, IMHO (and I use both).
Iran puts a satellite in orbit... We take ourselves out of the space based weapons party?
And one has to do with the other... how? Do you have *any* idea how far Iran is from a space-based weapon? Far more dangerous is their ability to move from rocketry to ICBMs. Space-based weapons are probably the *last* thing one need fear from Iran.
Honestly, this kind of paranoia is astonishing. How do you live your life when you're so scared all the time?
You might consider looking at a more meaningful statistic. Raw expenditures mean nothing. As percentage of GDP, the US is 28th, and Japan? 149th. Hell, Canada is 132nd, and our military is tiny by comparison to the American military behemoth. And of the nations which outrank the US, the only ones which aren't middle eastern states (big surprise) or second/third world dictatorships are China and, oddly, Greece.
Finally the truth slips out. We don't want stable API's, because we don't want closed source code. Okay. So then say it. We don't want 'the year of the Linux desktop'.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. You are clearly assuming that "the year of the Linux desktop" *requires* "closed source code". Of course, we all know that's complete, utter bullshit. But nice try.
Ahh, you beat me to it. Patents, in the corporate world, do *not* exist to protect the corporation from being sued if someone else patents the concept. Patents, in the corporate world, exist for one of two reasons: as a club to make money (ie, patent trolling), or as a defensive, MAD-style weapon against would-be patent trolls. If you just want to make sure someone *else* doesn't patent your idea, a defensive publication is all you need.
You present a dichotomy here, where I'm not sure one is necessary
I present no such dichotomy. My argument (and, by the way, looking back, it has little to do with your original comment:) goes thusly:
1) Some people are stupid. 2) We can choose to have the government attempt to compensate for such stupidity, or we can choose to have the government stay out. 3) In the end, the cost of the government intervening is worth it for the social benefit.
Excellent examples of this include free condoms and safe injection sites to reduce the spread of disease (thus addressing the GGPs comment about HIV). Could the government stay out? Sure. But if the government gets involved, the overall benefit to society will outweigh the costs. It's a very simple, practical matter. Which is why I consider myself a realist.
As it happens, this is also why I favour universal healthcare. Then again, I'm also a Canadian. So maybe I'm not a realist after all.:)
Bullshit. Go read this. *Many* other places have been sued unsuccessfully for serving coffee at similar temperatures. Hell, the fucking Coffee Association of America recommends brewing coffee between 195-200F, and serving between 180-185F (McD's was between 180-190F). The McD's case was only unique in that the stupid woman actually won.
No one drank coffee that hot, it would of sloughed off your tongue and you would of swallowed it. You could not even sip coffee that hot it would of blistered your lips.
Ah, I see, you haven't learn the magic of blowing on your coffee. See, it makes the surface of the coffee cooler and safe to drink.
Look, I drink all my tea immediately after boiling it. We're talking 95C (200F-ish). Do I burn my mouth occasionally? Yup. But I certainly don't blister my lips. That claim of yours is flat out silly. Hell, the National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed between 195-200F and maintained at 180-185F (McD's coffee was brewed between 180-190F). The idea that "no one drank coffee that hot" is utterly ridiculous.
Funny, people had been drinking coffee at that temperature for many years before Mrs. Klutz burned herself. I think maybe you just need to learn how to drink your coffee properly.
Then *don't drink it in the fucking car*. Jesus Christ! I've heard just as many complaints saying that coffee is served far too cold, now, and the it's best consumed piping hot. What makes you right and them wrong? Other than you're trying to protect people from themselves and their own stupidity?
So? Hot coffee is *hot*. If you don't like how hot their coffee is, *don't buy it*.
woman required skin grafts to repair damage
And if she hadn't put the cup between her legs with the *lid off*, it never would've happened. Meanwhile, the grafts were required specifically because she spilled the coffee between her legs, while in the car, leaving her to sit in it. Is that McDonald's fault? I think not.
only sued for cost of medical bills after McD's blew her off.
As they should've. She spilled *hot coffee* on herself. Coffee she willingly purchased and *knew* was hot. And it's McDonald's fault it was hot and she spilled it on herself? I can't think of a more retarded lawsuit.
Lots of details glossed over concerning that incident but considering just how hot it was and the damage it did I don't think awarding ONE day's worth of coffee sales was that bad of a restitution
On the face of it, no. But it sets a precedent that they were prefer not to set. After that, if someone scalds their mouth on hot cheese, should McDonald's hand out coupons for a free burger? They did it for the coffee lady...
There are certainly shitty lawsuits but THAT one was pretty deserved I think
And I think not. She bought coffee she *knew* was hot. She then took off the fucking lid. And then *put it between her legs*. How is that anyone's fault but hers?
Sorry, bub. If I cut my foot off with a chainsaw I don't sue the chainsaw manufacturer. This is no different. She was handed a hot coffee that was advertised as such, that she *knew* was hot, and then did something really fucking stupid with it. It's her own damn fault, and the idea that McD's owed her millions because of her stupidity is *disgusting*.
Or hell, just understand that on-the-job learning is part and parcel of being a software developer. The idea that every hire must match some fixed set of criteria is really quite silly... better to hire someone who has demonstrated, through their work experience, an aptitude for learning on their feet, than someone with some finite skillset.
Like it or not, being a dumbass is part of the human condition. Compassion is recognition of that.
As is practicality. Which would you prefer? A country where stupid people ran around infecting people while getting sick and dying, heavily burdening what little social safety net is in place, or a country that acts to compensate for human stupidity, investing today in order to reduce the burden in the future? Seems like a no-brainer to me, but hey... I'm a realist.
And where have these calls be coming from, exactly? As far as I can tell, the only one asking this silly question is some dude from DistroWatch... and it's just a question during an interview with Linus, for god sake!
Something tells me "pcpro", whoever the hell they are, is simply manufacturing a story...
I couldn't agree more. Which is, again, why I believe the industry really is awash with hacks, and why you see sites like thedailywtf springing up. There are people out there calling themselves "software developers" while doing the shoddiest of work, and a) no one holds them accountable, and b) no one even thinks to (people are resigned to the idea that software is buggy and unstable).
Slashdot Mirror
I hate replying to my own post, but...
Just on this point, the real issue is that the results from the NRC *both* affirmed Mann's results, while at the same time echoing some of MM's criticisms. But the key point is this: Mann's results we *not* refuted by the panel (at least if the BBC article is to be believed, I haven't actually gone through the panel's results).
1. It wasn't just MM disputing the "hockey stick" - a independent panel of statistics experts reporting to Congress examined it, Mann's work, and found that MM were the ones in the right.
Uhh, if you're talking about the National Research Council panel, the BBC seems to take the exact opposite stance on the results. Are you saying the BBC is lying? Or are you talking about a different panel?
2. The "hockey stick" was found to be the result of faulty mathematics...by people who specialize in mathematics. That makes them experts in their fields.
If that's true, great. But the validity of those results seems to be in question. Some claim the math is bad. Others don't.
3. If Mann is so right, why doesn't his model stand up to scrutiny?
Way to beg the question. You assume the model doesn't stand up to scrutiny, yet I've already provided an article that claims it does. Are you right, or am I?
Let me put it this way - Mann and company are hiding and misrepresenting data and methodologies
According to you. Citations, please?
MM are pointing out there is a problem, making all of their work publicly available, and have received independent verification that their math is correct from experts in statistics and statistical analysis.
I've already provided at least one citation that indicates otherwise, a citation not produced by Mann, et al. I'm sure I could dig up others.
So, who's right?
Who do you find more trustworthy?
Well, the denialists:
a) make the false assumption that the entire scientific community is a monolithic, closed clique that can't possibly be trusted,
b) are blinded by the romantic notion that the loan maverick is more trustworthy than the community (what I like to call Galileo syndrome)
c) are populated by those with a clear vested interest in finding AGW false (eg, the fossil fuel industry)
d) like to trot out old and dead arguments that have been long refuted, a tendency that's disturbingly mirrored in the Intelligent Design community.
Given this, I tend toward siding with the scientists, flawed as they may be. But, of course, that's a bias in an of itself (and one I will happily admit to).
Oh, I see. So some dude with a BSc in Math claims to find a hole in the data, and when the original authors rebut his claims... you just assume MM was right (as opposed to, say, poking holes in the rebuttal).
Nope, not biased at all...
Yup, the GW deniers got it wrong again. Big surprise...
This is probably a troll, but...
If you can not say with any sort of certainty that it will be 20-22 next week on friday. How am I supposed to take your word for it that it is going to be X degrees warmer/cooler next CENTURY?
I can tell you, right now, today, that the temperature six months from now will be warmer than the temperature today. Why? Because what you're talking about is weather, and it's short-term chaotic. What the climate science community is talking about is climate. They deal with long term trends, where that short-term noise is factored out. The fact you don't understand the difference speaks to your lack of education in science and statistics.
Here is a theory maybe its just warmer because there have been less volcano? Or maybe something in the earths core has started emitting more heat? Or maybe the sun is giving off more solar radiation (on its cycle)? There are tons of these things which can change the weather.
And, believe it or not, climate scientists have looked at them all. Yes, it's true... you aren't actually smarter than the entire world's climate science community. And bad news: none of them can account for the level of climate change that's been observed. In just the last 50 years there's been a staggering increase in global temperatures, and none of those factors that you cited can account for them.
I just am saying that the models are mostly based on data that is being fudged around to fit a particular agenda.
According to whom? Have you looked at the models? Examined the data? And if you're so sure, why haven't you written a peer reviewed article refuting these models you've apparently debunked? I'm sure the scientific community would appreciate it.
Even Einstein did this he had his great 'cosmological constant'. As he was trying to fudge his theory to fit his world view. He called it one of his greatest mistakes.
Ummm, that wasn't a "fudge factor". That was a valid term in the equations he produced. The only "fudge" was to assume the value of that constant was zero. Ironically, in that sense, he got it wrong: Go look at cosmic expansion, specifically the fact that it's accelerating. This just happens to coincide with a positive value for that constant you're happily deriding.
LOL, nicely done, AC.
So... you say, given that two of the most important software companies in the world are collaborating, how could it be a paranoid rambling to distrust them?
Oh, I don't know... because the most important software companies in the world collaborating gave us *UNIX* (or, I suppose I should say POSIX), among other things.
Trust me, you're paranoid. Companies working together to agree to an interoperable standard is a *good* thing, not a "[concentration] of power".
Any time Microsoft and Google decide to partner on something, you know the rest of us are just going to get screwed.
Because why, exactly? And before you start, try going with a reasoned argument, rather than paranoid ramblings. I know that's asking a lot, but...
It does indeed. It replaces the video with a clickable icon, so that you can interactively re-enable flash videos easily. Much better than having to go add exceptions in NoScript, IMHO (and I use both).
Iran puts a satellite in orbit... We take ourselves out of the space based weapons party?
And one has to do with the other... how? Do you have *any* idea how far Iran is from a space-based weapon? Far more dangerous is their ability to move from rocketry to ICBMs. Space-based weapons are probably the *last* thing one need fear from Iran.
Honestly, this kind of paranoia is astonishing. How do you live your life when you're so scared all the time?
You might consider looking at a more meaningful statistic. Raw expenditures mean nothing. As percentage of GDP, the US is 28th, and Japan? 149th. Hell, Canada is 132nd, and our military is tiny by comparison to the American military behemoth. And of the nations which outrank the US, the only ones which aren't middle eastern states (big surprise) or second/third world dictatorships are China and, oddly, Greece.
Finally the truth slips out. We don't want stable API's, because we don't want closed source code. Okay. So then say it. We don't want 'the year of the Linux desktop'.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. You are clearly assuming that "the year of the Linux desktop" *requires* "closed source code". Of course, we all know that's complete, utter bullshit. But nice try.
The FCC has rules about how many hours of things like public service you have to run to keep your license.
Until February 17, the calculation comes from the analog signal.
Citation, please. Because stories like this seem to suggest you're talking out of your ass.
Ahh, you beat me to it. Patents, in the corporate world, do *not* exist to protect the corporation from being sued if someone else patents the concept. Patents, in the corporate world, exist for one of two reasons: as a club to make money (ie, patent trolling), or as a defensive, MAD-style weapon against would-be patent trolls. If you just want to make sure someone *else* doesn't patent your idea, a defensive publication is all you need.
You present a dichotomy here, where I'm not sure one is necessary
I present no such dichotomy. My argument (and, by the way, looking back, it has little to do with your original comment :) goes thusly:
1) Some people are stupid.
2) We can choose to have the government attempt to compensate for such stupidity, or we can choose to have the government stay out.
3) In the end, the cost of the government intervening is worth it for the social benefit.
Excellent examples of this include free condoms and safe injection sites to reduce the spread of disease (thus addressing the GGPs comment about HIV). Could the government stay out? Sure. But if the government gets involved, the overall benefit to society will outweigh the costs. It's a very simple, practical matter. Which is why I consider myself a realist.
As it happens, this is also why I favour universal healthcare. Then again, I'm also a Canadian. So maybe I'm not a realist after all. :)
Bullshit. Go read this. *Many* other places have been sued unsuccessfully for serving coffee at similar temperatures. Hell, the fucking Coffee Association of America recommends brewing coffee between 195-200F, and serving between 180-185F (McD's was between 180-190F). The McD's case was only unique in that the stupid woman actually won.
No one drank coffee that hot, it would of sloughed off your tongue and you would of swallowed it. You could not even sip coffee that hot it would of blistered your lips.
Ah, I see, you haven't learn the magic of blowing on your coffee. See, it makes the surface of the coffee cooler and safe to drink.
Look, I drink all my tea immediately after boiling it. We're talking 95C (200F-ish). Do I burn my mouth occasionally? Yup. But I certainly don't blister my lips. That claim of yours is flat out silly. Hell, the National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed between 195-200F and maintained at 180-185F (McD's coffee was brewed between 180-190F). The idea that "no one drank coffee that hot" is utterly ridiculous.
Funny, people had been drinking coffee at that temperature for many years before Mrs. Klutz burned herself. I think maybe you just need to learn how to drink your coffee properly.
Then *don't drink it in the fucking car*. Jesus Christ! I've heard just as many complaints saying that coffee is served far too cold, now, and the it's best consumed piping hot. What makes you right and them wrong? Other than you're trying to protect people from themselves and their own stupidity?
Car wasn't moving,
She was a klutz. That's McDonald's fault?
complaints about temp filed more than once,
So? Hot coffee is *hot*. If you don't like how hot their coffee is, *don't buy it*.
woman required skin grafts to repair damage
And if she hadn't put the cup between her legs with the *lid off*, it never would've happened. Meanwhile, the grafts were required specifically because she spilled the coffee between her legs, while in the car, leaving her to sit in it. Is that McDonald's fault? I think not.
only sued for cost of medical bills after McD's blew her off.
As they should've. She spilled *hot coffee* on herself. Coffee she willingly purchased and *knew* was hot. And it's McDonald's fault it was hot and she spilled it on herself? I can't think of a more retarded lawsuit.
Lots of details glossed over concerning that incident but considering just how hot it was and the damage it did I don't think awarding ONE day's worth of coffee sales was that bad of a restitution
On the face of it, no. But it sets a precedent that they were prefer not to set. After that, if someone scalds their mouth on hot cheese, should McDonald's hand out coupons for a free burger? They did it for the coffee lady...
There are certainly shitty lawsuits but THAT one was pretty deserved I think
And I think not. She bought coffee she *knew* was hot. She then took off the fucking lid. And then *put it between her legs*. How is that anyone's fault but hers?
Sorry, bub. If I cut my foot off with a chainsaw I don't sue the chainsaw manufacturer. This is no different. She was handed a hot coffee that was advertised as such, that she *knew* was hot, and then did something really fucking stupid with it. It's her own damn fault, and the idea that McD's owed her millions because of her stupidity is *disgusting*.
Or hell, just understand that on-the-job learning is part and parcel of being a software developer. The idea that every hire must match some fixed set of criteria is really quite silly... better to hire someone who has demonstrated, through their work experience, an aptitude for learning on their feet, than someone with some finite skillset.
Like it or not, being a dumbass is part of the human condition. Compassion is recognition of that.
As is practicality. Which would you prefer? A country where stupid people ran around infecting people while getting sick and dying, heavily burdening what little social safety net is in place, or a country that acts to compensate for human stupidity, investing today in order to reduce the burden in the future? Seems like a no-brainer to me, but hey... I'm a realist.
And where have these calls be coming from, exactly? As far as I can tell, the only one asking this silly question is some dude from DistroWatch... and it's just a question during an interview with Linus, for god sake!
Something tells me "pcpro", whoever the hell they are, is simply manufacturing a story...
I couldn't agree more. Which is, again, why I believe the industry really is awash with hacks, and why you see sites like thedailywtf springing up. There are people out there calling themselves "software developers" while doing the shoddiest of work, and a) no one holds them accountable, and b) no one even thinks to (people are resigned to the idea that software is buggy and unstable).
Ah, but you see, there's an implicit assumption in your reasonable post that is likely not true for the OP: you have friends.