About those models, what do you have to say about this? It seems to me that if all the models have been predicting that cirrus will trap heat leading to a positive feedback, but the actual measurements show the exact opposite, that at the very least the models have a big flaw, and at the worst this might be an indication of a bias in the construction of those models. Fudged data.
Uh... how about Heidi Cullen's call to have any meteorologist who questions AGW decertified? Or when Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon considered firing the state's climatologist George Taylor because Taylor asserts that humans aren't the principle cause of climate change? Or when the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control sought to remove state climatologist David Legates because he didn't support the politically convenient alarmism over AGW? The Governor of Virginia told his state climatologist to make it clear that his views do not agree with the state's official policy after an investigation into removing that climatologist proved fruitless. Colorado state climatologist Roger Pielke writes about this censorship on his weblog. Note the players... state climatologists who oppose the alarmist position are being intimidated for their views. How much money has gone into research on global warming? Where has it come from? What happens to the funding for those scientists who disagree with the "consensus" views? And what kind of consensus do you really have, when this many state climatologists are bullied into submission over the space of a handful of months?!
And then, to top it all off, anyone who dares to question the faith aren't referred to as skeptics any longer. They're called deniers in a sloppy but effective rhetorical trick to equate that kind of reasoning with holocaust denial. The politics of AGW are deeply flawed.
This is a real problem. Plenty of vendors sell the unauthorized work of others. In the case of one "artist", I found images just last night that I recognized from another, real world source, signed on each image by the vendor; the clearest example of IP "theft" I can think of, and certainly a lot more flagrant than any music sharing that pisses off RIAA so much. But I don't think it's that big of an issue. This kind of copyright infringement is rampant throughout the Internet. Look at the content of YouTube, for example. And at the same time this is going on, there are genuine, original artists to be found both in Second Life, and YouTube. To some extent, I see this as an example of the marginal value of both venues for creative expression. There aren't enough people in either environment for plagiarists to be recognized for what they are yet. Additionally, there's a tolerance on the internet for copyright infringement... in part because organizations like RIAA and MPAA have made pests of themselves and created a "fuck you" attitude towards IP, and also in part because people in general tend to be lazy and inconsiderate of the work of others.
No, no, no. This was an effort at self-deprecating humor by juxtaposing the conclusion that the dentist knows I haven't brushed my teeth through the use of Orwellian technology with the very simple and obvious realization that had I not been brushing my teeth, the dentist should be able to deduce this from a simple observation. The joke relies on inverted parsimony to jab at the intellect of the author.
Jokes just go so flat when one must explain them. Just... laugh politely next time and pretend you got it.
It's simple. A free society must tolerate some lawlessness or it is no longer free. Nope, it isn't right to litter or burgle or murder or rape. But it also isn't right to keep adding powers and new surveillance technology to police forces until they are as omniscient as God.
Yep, for some reason I keep imagining at least one fellow wadding up aluminum foil sheets and throwing them while yelling, "Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!"
White LEDs actually use a blue or UV emitter coupled with a phosphorescent coating similar to that used in fluorescent lamps. There are RGB LEDs available, but they are marketed for their tunability, not their ability to produce white light.
Re:Had my cup o' pedant this morning..
on
Happy Birthday, Amiga
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I'm sorry, but you're the one with inaccurate info. As I've said, I sold the Mindset computer a year before the Amiga came out, and I chose the Amiga over the Mindset because it had better graphics, better animation, better sound, ran faster, stored more info on a floppy, and all at a MUCH lower price than the Mindset. When it came out, the Mindset looked pretty good, but that was in 1984. 1985 changed all that.
It was called AmigaDOS and supported things like pre-emptive multitasking ten years before Windows did. By configuring a RAM disk, one could perform a complete reboot in only a few seconds. Plus there were lots of little things. The way icons worked, the availability of the mouse pointer before the GUI loaded (akin to using the mouse in MSDOS before Windows loads), and other nice touches that made using the Amiga a very pleasant experience.
Sorry friend, but I sold Mindsets a year before Amigas hit the market. The Mindset was clearly inferior in every way with the dubious exception of having some IBM PC compatibility.
Alright, that was genuinely funny! Apology accepted and offered in kind for my own short-tempered remarks.
"So why are these issues being raised all of a sudden?"
I don't think there is anything new about this. But we do have an administration in office which is perfectly willing to put ideology before science on a number of issues, and a "liberal media" that is not only eager to call the President on it, but by association has become very sensitive about anything that smacks of repression by the religious. So we see more stories about creationist challenges in the schools, for example. This is a bit like the shark attack stories that hit the news a few summers ago. Time magazine called 2001 the Summer of the Shark, but what we were seeing was really a media feeding frenzy -- the actual number of shark attacks and fatalities was lower than the previous year and, I beleive, well below average.
I'll confess that I don't know for certain that this is the case, but given the faddish and often inaccurate reporting that occurs (again, not a new phenomenon -- see the Spanish-American war for an old example), I'm skeptical when I hear about something like this.
So I don't think it's alarmist intellectuals, but rather the media who are currently alert to creationists vs. evolution conflicts and all too happy to jump on for a ride. When a film like Volcanoes... doesn't do well, and the filmmakers involved don't want to admit they didn't do a good job, the press is all too happy to oblige them with a story that sends shivers up and down our Darwinian spines.
All of the above is offered as a hypothesis, of course. Possibly little more than the confused rants of a man who has prematurely become an old curmudgeon decades before his time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to actually spend more than a few minutes with Google on research to prove it. Besides, I'd need to do a good LexusNexis search to even begin to do this any justice.
Of course, even if the press is right and there is a threat to IMAX films, I'm still hard pressed to do anything more than wave a dismissive hand at the bible-thumpers and wish they'd go pee in someone else's water. Largely because I believe that in a free market, folks like you and me shouldn't be able to tell the religious right not to exert the influence of their wallets. If they decided they don't want to go see a movie that offends them, then that's their choice, and if there are enough of them, then those kinds of movies won't get made anymore. But the beauty of this is that I think we're on the winning side of that system. When was the last time you saw a creationist IMAX film at a science center?
You're still obsessing over effect vs. affect?! *snicker* Get over it. It doesn't reflect some deep-seated misunderstanding of cosmic significance, it was just a typo. A misspelled word spilled out in a moment of haste at worst. That's all. "Most people who use...aren't doing so because of typos...." And what about the set of people who are not included under your use of the word "most"? No, you're too busy trying to hang your arguments on a presumptious assertion; any editor with half a brain would simply correct the error and move on, but not you. You have a point to make and one minor error gives you a perceived advantage. Take a look around you, this isn't Harper's or The New Yorker, this is Slashdot where less than perfect grammar is the norm and you're lucky if you get commas and paragraphs in most posts. I'm not going to waste my time in fastidious exertion for such a forum.
And the really laughable part is that you clearly understood the intent, so I successfully communicated! Here's a clue for you: I do understand the difference in meaning between "affect" and "effect". Just as I understand the meaning of the word "PEDANT".
"Similarly, you don't realize that the issue this article raised isn't a business issue and isn't insignificant just because of the relatively small number of theaters involved." On the contrary, it IS a business issue, and at this point it IS insignificant. Those precious science centers of yours ARE businesses, not research institutes, and they have to take their audiences into consideration. If they don't and they alienate enough people (you've used a slippery-slope argument above, so I presume you'll forgive me mine), then they won't do enough business to keep their doors open and it won't just be Darwin they learn nothing about, but Newton and Einstein and Watson and Crick as well. And if enough of those science centers close, then how many general science documentaries will be produced for IMAX? Is that what you want? In a perfect world, bible-thumpers would be able to co-exist with science, but that has NEVER been the case yet. Compare this to the Scopes Trial and tell me this is as big as that and I might start to get concerned. But I doubt it is.
You're upset because those idjit bible-thumpers aren't thinking like you just as you're upset over my mistake, and that's blowing this issue out of proportion for you. Holy cow! Someone out there takes their Bible literally and objects to the Theory of Evolution -- someone out there isn't having thoughts approved by kongjie -- that really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
Did you read this part? "On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass." I saw Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, and I was similarly unimpressed. Not because of the mention of evolution, but because it was boring. Because I didn't think it worked well on the IMAX screen. Considering the lack of specifics in the Times' article, I'm a bit skeptical and not willing to accept everything said in it without reservation. It's quite likely, in my opinion, that this is a tempest in a teapot over a few poorly made movies that failed to do well, and those involved have decided to point fingers at the fundamentalists rather than accept responsibility for their own creative mistakes.
You know, if it comes down to fundamentalists interfering with funding evolution-based research, I'll be right there alongside you protesting their efforts -- along with taping a "Kick Me" sign to your back. But there is no way I'm getting my panties in a bunch over them not going to see a couple movies. In just a few theaters. In a portion of the country. Besides, what do you propose as an alternative?
Go back and read my first post again, carefully this time, and think about the questions I raised.
I'm not sure I can learn much about arguing from someone who starts off with an insult and then follows with a remark over a typo. Dude.
My compliments, however, on your skill at shutting down what could have been an enlightening discussion about a vaguely-written article and the needs of businesses to adjust to the demands of their clientele.
Pay attention yourself. HOW MANY science centers are feeling this pressure? The article itself took pains to be vague about the actual figure, saying "perhaps a dozen or fewer" theaters TOTAL were effected. Of these, most are entertainment theaters that DON'T show science documentaries in the first place. I have three IMAX movie theaters within an easy drive of my home, and two of those don't show science programming AT ALL. "Tomb Raider" is okay with them. "Volcanos" is not. Not because of a dubious connection between creationists and the films, but because science isn't perceived as being as entertaining as Lara Croft's...er...assets.
The article mentions "several" theaters in the second paragraph, says "the number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer" in the third paragraph, indicates that most of these theaters are in the south, and that most IMAX theaters don't routinely show science documentaries anyway.
So at most, we're discussing twelve businesses, most of which don't normally show science movies in the first place, in areas where the people have a predilection for creationism, deciding that they'd lose business if they chose to show films that offended sensibilities of their audiences. Geeze, people complain about the newsworthiness of postings on Slashdot -- they New York Times thinks this is news? FLASH: People decide to make their own business choices, film at eleven!
Over whom shall we assert a collective mandate and override their rights to chose? The businesses whose managers have decided it isn't in their financial interests to show it? The creationists who would rather not be force-fed what they don't believe in? There are 240 IMAX theaters, do they all have to show science documentaries? I would prefer that they do, but I also know that I don't want to live in a country that makes such a requirement.
These aren't public schools. They are businesses. They are responding to the local demands of their audiences -- the only demand to which they should be held accountable. And at that, we're talking about twelve (at the most!) out of 240 that have made this decision.
And why should the consumer not have the ability to record the Pay Per View X on the DVR? It seems the business model of Pay Per View is inherently flawed in that it requires the mandatory adoption of a technology that prevents the consumer from seeking the most convenient use of technology. Since the Betamax decision, consumers have had the legal "right" to record shows for their own enjoyment later. Now, because a business model shows up that depends on the customer not being able to do that, the entertainment industry should have its way and treat all customers as potential criminals?
Slashdot Mirror
But what if all those climate models have the same flaw?
About those models, what do you have to say about this? It seems to me that if all the models have been predicting that cirrus will trap heat leading to a positive feedback, but the actual measurements show the exact opposite, that at the very least the models have a big flaw, and at the worst this might be an indication of a bias in the construction of those models. Fudged data.
Uh ... how about Heidi Cullen's call to have any meteorologist who questions AGW decertified? Or when Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon considered firing the state's climatologist George Taylor because Taylor asserts that humans aren't the principle cause of climate change? Or when the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control sought to remove state climatologist David Legates because he didn't support the politically convenient alarmism over AGW? The Governor of Virginia told his state climatologist to make it clear that his views do not agree with the state's official policy after an investigation into removing that climatologist proved fruitless. Colorado state climatologist Roger Pielke writes about this censorship on his weblog. Note the players ... state climatologists who oppose the alarmist position are being intimidated for their views. How much money has gone into research on global warming? Where has it come from? What happens to the funding for those scientists who disagree with the "consensus" views? And what kind of consensus do you really have, when this many state climatologists are bullied into submission over the space of a handful of months?!
And then, to top it all off, anyone who dares to question the faith aren't referred to as skeptics any longer. They're called deniers in a sloppy but effective rhetorical trick to equate that kind of reasoning with holocaust denial. The politics of AGW are deeply flawed.
This is a real problem. Plenty of vendors sell the unauthorized work of others. In the case of one "artist", I found images just last night that I recognized from another, real world source, signed on each image by the vendor; the clearest example of IP "theft" I can think of, and certainly a lot more flagrant than any music sharing that pisses off RIAA so much. But I don't think it's that big of an issue. This kind of copyright infringement is rampant throughout the Internet. Look at the content of YouTube, for example. And at the same time this is going on, there are genuine, original artists to be found both in Second Life, and YouTube. To some extent, I see this as an example of the marginal value of both venues for creative expression. There aren't enough people in either environment for plagiarists to be recognized for what they are yet. Additionally, there's a tolerance on the internet for copyright infringement ... in part because organizations like RIAA and MPAA have made pests of themselves and created a "fuck you" attitude towards IP, and also in part because people in general tend to be lazy and inconsiderate of the work of others.
And I'm sure the Earth will become an UNinhabitable wasteland just because one joker decided to stick with incandescent bulbs.
No, no, no. This was an effort at self-deprecating humor by juxtaposing the conclusion that the dentist knows I haven't brushed my teeth through the use of Orwellian technology with the very simple and obvious realization that had I not been brushing my teeth, the dentist should be able to deduce this from a simple observation. The joke relies on inverted parsimony to jab at the intellect of the author.
... laugh politely next time and pretend you got it.
Jokes just go so flat when one must explain them. Just
WAIT! Toothbrushes have RFID tags?! No wonder my dentist always knows I haven't been brushing my teeth!
It's simple. A free society must tolerate some lawlessness or it is no longer free. Nope, it isn't right to litter or burgle or murder or rape. But it also isn't right to keep adding powers and new surveillance technology to police forces until they are as omniscient as God.
Yep, for some reason I keep imagining at least one fellow wadding up aluminum foil sheets and throwing them while yelling, "Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!"
Why is it even necessary? I mean, other than to give already bloated bureaucracies an excuse to help themselves to another bite of intrusive power....
I beg your pardon, but isn't it more correct to say that "innocent until proven guilty" does apply to civil matters, only the burden of proof is less?
White LEDs actually use a blue or UV emitter coupled with a phosphorescent coating similar to that used in fluorescent lamps. There are RGB LEDs available, but they are marketed for their tunability, not their ability to produce white light.
I'm sorry, but you're the one with inaccurate info. As I've said, I sold the Mindset computer a year before the Amiga came out, and I chose the Amiga over the Mindset because it had better graphics, better animation, better sound, ran faster, stored more info on a floppy, and all at a MUCH lower price than the Mindset. When it came out, the Mindset looked pretty good, but that was in 1984. 1985 changed all that.
Here's another site that confirms the Mindset specs.
DeluxePaint! I'd kill to have an updated copy of DeluxePaint!
It was called AmigaDOS and supported things like pre-emptive multitasking ten years before Windows did. By configuring a RAM disk, one could perform a complete reboot in only a few seconds. Plus there were lots of little things. The way icons worked, the availability of the mouse pointer before the GUI loaded (akin to using the mouse in MSDOS before Windows loads), and other nice touches that made using the Amiga a very pleasant experience.
Sorry friend, but I sold Mindsets a year before Amigas hit the market. The Mindset was clearly inferior in every way with the dubious exception of having some IBM PC compatibility.
Lawyers!
"2. Get that sign off my ass."
Alright, that was genuinely funny! Apology accepted and offered in kind for my own short-tempered remarks.
"So why are these issues being raised all of a sudden?"
I don't think there is anything new about this. But we do have an administration in office which is perfectly willing to put ideology before science on a number of issues, and a "liberal media" that is not only eager to call the President on it, but by association has become very sensitive about anything that smacks of repression by the religious. So we see more stories about creationist challenges in the schools, for example. This is a bit like the shark attack stories that hit the news a few summers ago. Time magazine called 2001 the Summer of the Shark, but what we were seeing was really a media feeding frenzy -- the actual number of shark attacks and fatalities was lower than the previous year and, I beleive, well below average.
I'll confess that I don't know for certain that this is the case, but given the faddish and often inaccurate reporting that occurs (again, not a new phenomenon -- see the Spanish-American war for an old example), I'm skeptical when I hear about something like this.
So I don't think it's alarmist intellectuals, but rather the media who are currently alert to creationists vs. evolution conflicts and all too happy to jump on for a ride. When a film like Volcanoes... doesn't do well, and the filmmakers involved don't want to admit they didn't do a good job, the press is all too happy to oblige them with a story that sends shivers up and down our Darwinian spines.
All of the above is offered as a hypothesis, of course. Possibly little more than the confused rants of a man who has prematurely become an old curmudgeon decades before his time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to actually spend more than a few minutes with Google on research to prove it. Besides, I'd need to do a good LexusNexis search to even begin to do this any justice.
Of course, even if the press is right and there is a threat to IMAX films, I'm still hard pressed to do anything more than wave a dismissive hand at the bible-thumpers and wish they'd go pee in someone else's water. Largely because I believe that in a free market, folks like you and me shouldn't be able to tell the religious right not to exert the influence of their wallets. If they decided they don't want to go see a movie that offends them, then that's their choice, and if there are enough of them, then those kinds of movies won't get made anymore. But the beauty of this is that I think we're on the winning side of that system. When was the last time you saw a creationist IMAX film at a science center?
You're still obsessing over effect vs. affect?! *snicker* Get over it. It doesn't reflect some deep-seated misunderstanding of cosmic significance, it was just a typo. A misspelled word spilled out in a moment of haste at worst. That's all. "Most people who use...aren't doing so because of typos...." And what about the set of people who are not included under your use of the word "most"? No, you're too busy trying to hang your arguments on a presumptious assertion; any editor with half a brain would simply correct the error and move on, but not you. You have a point to make and one minor error gives you a perceived advantage. Take a look around you, this isn't Harper's or The New Yorker, this is Slashdot where less than perfect grammar is the norm and you're lucky if you get commas and paragraphs in most posts. I'm not going to waste my time in fastidious exertion for such a forum.
And the really laughable part is that you clearly understood the intent, so I successfully communicated! Here's a clue for you: I do understand the difference in meaning between "affect" and "effect". Just as I understand the meaning of the word "PEDANT".
"Similarly, you don't realize that the issue this article raised isn't a business issue and isn't insignificant just because of the relatively small number of theaters involved." On the contrary, it IS a business issue, and at this point it IS insignificant. Those precious science centers of yours ARE businesses, not research institutes, and they have to take their audiences into consideration. If they don't and they alienate enough people (you've used a slippery-slope argument above, so I presume you'll forgive me mine), then they won't do enough business to keep their doors open and it won't just be Darwin they learn nothing about, but Newton and Einstein and Watson and Crick as well. And if enough of those science centers close, then how many general science documentaries will be produced for IMAX? Is that what you want? In a perfect world, bible-thumpers would be able to co-exist with science, but that has NEVER been the case yet. Compare this to the Scopes Trial and tell me this is as big as that and I might start to get concerned. But I doubt it is.
You're upset because those idjit bible-thumpers aren't thinking like you just as you're upset over my mistake, and that's blowing this issue out of proportion for you. Holy cow! Someone out there takes their Bible literally and objects to the Theory of Evolution -- someone out there isn't having thoughts approved by kongjie -- that really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
Did you read this part? "On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass." I saw Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, and I was similarly unimpressed. Not because of the mention of evolution, but because it was boring. Because I didn't think it worked well on the IMAX screen. Considering the lack of specifics in the Times' article, I'm a bit skeptical and not willing to accept everything said in it without reservation. It's quite likely, in my opinion, that this is a tempest in a teapot over a few poorly made movies that failed to do well, and those involved have decided to point fingers at the fundamentalists rather than accept responsibility for their own creative mistakes.
You know, if it comes down to fundamentalists interfering with funding evolution-based research, I'll be right there alongside you protesting their efforts -- along with taping a "Kick Me" sign to your back. But there is no way I'm getting my panties in a bunch over them not going to see a couple movies. In just a few theaters. In a portion of the country. Besides, what do you propose as an alternative?
Go back and read my first post again, carefully this time, and think about the questions I raised.
I'm not sure I can learn much about arguing from someone who starts off with an insult and then follows with a remark over a typo. Dude. My compliments, however, on your skill at shutting down what could have been an enlightening discussion about a vaguely-written article and the needs of businesses to adjust to the demands of their clientele.
Pay attention yourself. HOW MANY science centers are feeling this pressure? The article itself took pains to be vague about the actual figure, saying "perhaps a dozen or fewer" theaters TOTAL were effected. Of these, most are entertainment theaters that DON'T show science documentaries in the first place. I have three IMAX movie theaters within an easy drive of my home, and two of those don't show science programming AT ALL. "Tomb Raider" is okay with them. "Volcanos" is not. Not because of a dubious connection between creationists and the films, but because science isn't perceived as being as entertaining as Lara Croft's...er...assets.
The article mentions "several" theaters in the second paragraph, says "the number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer" in the third paragraph, indicates that most of these theaters are in the south, and that most IMAX theaters don't routinely show science documentaries anyway.
So at most, we're discussing twelve businesses, most of which don't normally show science movies in the first place, in areas where the people have a predilection for creationism, deciding that they'd lose business if they chose to show films that offended sensibilities of their audiences. Geeze, people complain about the newsworthiness of postings on Slashdot -- they New York Times thinks this is news? FLASH: People decide to make their own business choices, film at eleven!
Over whom shall we assert a collective mandate and override their rights to chose? The businesses whose managers have decided it isn't in their financial interests to show it? The creationists who would rather not be force-fed what they don't believe in? There are 240 IMAX theaters, do they all have to show science documentaries? I would prefer that they do, but I also know that I don't want to live in a country that makes such a requirement.
These aren't public schools. They are businesses. They are responding to the local demands of their audiences -- the only demand to which they should be held accountable. And at that, we're talking about twelve (at the most!) out of 240 that have made this decision.
Big deal.
Cool. And what about Blitzen? Or Dasher? Or Prancer?
Third, actually. The animated series was also on NBC.
(Cool! Does your tricorder light up like mine?)
And why should the consumer not have the ability to record the Pay Per View X on the DVR? It seems the business model of Pay Per View is inherently flawed in that it requires the mandatory adoption of a technology that prevents the consumer from seeking the most convenient use of technology. Since the Betamax decision, consumers have had the legal "right" to record shows for their own enjoyment later. Now, because a business model shows up that depends on the customer not being able to do that, the entertainment industry should have its way and treat all customers as potential criminals?