First, I want net neutrality. I'd prefer if it came through market competition rather then government fiat because I worry that that will lead to the FCC regulating the hell out... and that could lead to the internet being less of a free place. But I want our data to flow neutrally through the internet.
That said... the FCC really has no right to take sides in any political debate. That isn't their place. They are not to be advocates of any position. They are to enforce the law. They're police officers for communication. They are not community organizers.
Beyond that, I'll just make the comment that while I do think data should be neutral there should be some flexibility for VoIP and other types of data that require low latency. Compared to something like bit torrent or netflix streaming... you just don't need low latency for that. You just need bandwidth. If your data is delayed by half a second but it is all going into a cache then who cares.
I do NOT think this should be a paid service where you get your communication slowed down if you don't pay and get a faster channel if you do pay. Rather, I think that the communication should declare its needs to the network. And that communication protocols that do not need low latency should voluntarily declare that they are happy with high latency.
I got like 30 messages... and the stupid site won't let me respond to things in a rapid manner. So I have to do a message then come back a half hour later or so and answer another. That leads to me losing track of what I was talking about at some interval. The site is really quite terrible about keeping comments together. This whole "lets have messages disassociated from the thread when responded to" nonsense is silly.
As to my agenda... I really just want to discuss the science and not let this get sucked down the AGW rabbit hole. I find it distressing that both sides have this "with us or against us" attitude that is really quite hostile and unhelpful to any kind of rational discussion.
Listen to yourself as an example here. Just saying. A pinch of introspection would go a long way.
I'm not sure of the providence of this citation but it looks authentic. Consider that this might be a normal behavior pattern amongst walruses. I don't know a lot of about them. I suspect you know no more then I do about them. I am quite humble about my understandings of their natures. You would do well to be equally humble.
Neither of us are experts and we are both prey for political interest groups that want to brain wash us. The media is a awash in propaganda from all sides. Keep that in mind and try to remain cautious of where your information comes from. It appears for example that this walrus statement comes mostly from the WWF. That is not a scientific organization but rather an environmental activist organization. I am not saying they are wrong but they have a history of very biased analysis.
The most extreme example I think would be the application of the Drake Equation to species extinction rates. If you are familiar with the drake equation, then you know it cannot be used scientifically for any purpose what so ever. It is fallacious and was known to be so almost as soon as it was created in the 1970s. The author of the equation itself disavows it. And yet it has been used to estimate species extinction on earth. That is how you get numbers like "5 million species extinct this year." They're using the drake equation. No organization that uses that equation with a straight face can be taken seriously. Period.
I compared the two most distant dates in the system. 1995 December with 2013 December. Look at the LACK of a difference.
Now am I saying there is no difference? I wouldn't know... but the images are almost identical. Look at the extent of the ice around Alaska in both images. Basically the same.
Now again. I am not saying that the data = reality. However, you want to get scientific, then you need to base your argument on something.
So part "B" I think this is... that the sea ice is reduced... seems questionable to me. Let me get something from 2014 though just so we're talking about this year.
Okay, the latest this data covers is July of this year. I am comparing that to 1996,97,98,99... they're all a little different but the ice pack in july of 2014 does not appear unusual. So why were walruses not beaching themselves then?
As to ocean acidification, that doesn't back up your argument. That just gives you one more thing to try and prove. Furthermore, I dont' think it has anything to do with beaching. After all, that has something to do with food sources... not whether the walruses actually find the water toxic. But you know what... if you can show me something about ocean acidification harming the bodies or irritating the bodies of walruses then we might have something to talk about. Short of that, what you have is that it hurts some shell fish.
Keep an open mind. I could be totally wrong and you could be the person that shows me how wrong I am. But by the same token you could be wrong too. Keep an open mind and we can have a real discussion.;)
You're not talking about science. You're talking about politics. It is sad that people continuously confuse the politics of science with science itself.
No, they explained why they guess that. If they did science they'd look at past records and see if they beached themselves in past periods of low ice.
In this case we have periods with less ice then today and they didn't beach themselves. We also have periods of more ice where they did.
So... you see the problem.
You're linking A to B to C. And above you tried to say that "well global warming is real so...". I didn't say anything about global warming. We're talking about fucking walruses. And the first link is that "A" Walruses beach themselves is linked to "B" low sea ice... which fails on analysis.
So you can't even get to "C" which is "because global warming"... Because the link between low sea ice and walruses doesn't pan out. They have beached themselves with more ice and not beached themselves with less ice. So "less ice" = "beaching" fails.
This is what happens when you assume, think reasonable guesses are the same thing as science, and then persist to defend positions which are based on "nothing."
Here is what I've asked of people. Do the fucking science and stop assuming things. OR do not claim your assumptions are science. This is not unreasonable.
Measurements CAN have meaning... but they do not require meaning. I can take measurements that don't mean anything all day. I can set the output of my phone's accelerometer to output to a spreadsheet... then record the data. Will the data mean anything? I can take data furthermore in completely irresponsible ways and it will still be data. I can cherry pick my results and it is still data.
Data in and of itself is not meaningful. Data must be collected in a certain way to preserve its integrity and then it must be analyzed in a specific way to turn it into something meaningful. But prior to that point... it has only the POTENTIAL of being meaningful. Prior to that point... no meaning.
... Lets steal from microsoft and then talk about it on a communication protocol they completely control.
What.
Could.
Possibly.
Go.
Wrong?
Use ventrilo or team speak or mumble or something. Send in an email; go to this server, use this user name, join this channel.
Easy.
Can the FBI take over the server or pull logs from it? Maybe... depends on where it is... there are chat servers all over the world. Use one based in Brazil or something. It will slow them down. And try not to use the same server more then once. Jump around. Do different stuff. Be paranoid. it isn't if they really are out to get you... and if you're a group of hackers stealing secrets from a well connected multi billion dollar industry... then they are out to get you. These guys were sloppy and paid the price for it.
so by this theory, the walruses should beach when the ice is at its lowest... that is when there is the least ice? Historically that hasn't happened. Scientists have been watching the walruses and we've had years of lower ice cover with less beachings and years with higher ice cover with more beachings. I can cite evidence to that effect if you like. So you don't even have correlation much less causation.
So no... you cannot simply infer A leads to B leads to C without actually doing science in between. You can ASSUME this all you like and that is fine. But don't call it science. You didn't do any science to conclude that. No one did. There is no scientific opinion on that because no one has studied it in that way.
End of story. If you want it to be studied... then go do that. Since you probably only care about fodder for your little political cause, I doubt you'll spend any effort on the issue. The search for truth or fascination with the natural world is not something you probably share with me. You just want to score some meaningless points on an internet forum for your cause. Meaningless.
I am not your enemy. I am simply not one the koolaid drinkers and halfwits chanting along to your mantra. That does not make me wrong, evil, or ignorant.
We can play words games if you like... I'm quite good at them. But I frankly find the prospect to be boring. So I'll just win.
Data (/ËdeÉtÉ(TM)/ DAY-tÉ(TM),/ËdætÉ(TM)/ DA-tÉ(TM), or/ËdÉ'ËtÉ(TM)/ DAH-tÉ(TM))[1] is a set of values of qualitative or quantitative variables; restated, pieces of data are individual pieces of information. Data in computing (or data processing) is represented in a structure that is often tabular (represented by rows and columns), a tree (a set of nodes with parent-children relationship), or a graph (a set of connected nodes). Data is typically the result of measurements and can be visualized using graphs or images.
Data is simply information. Data does not imply analysis or even meaning. If I collected all the numbers from a random number generator... that file would be "data" just as much as anything else.
You have a different definition for data? Great... then we're having a semantic debate which is possibly the most boring dispute possible. By your definition of data I will probably agree with you. If you accepted my definition then you'd probably agree with me. Who cares.
This happens in every polarlized discussion. You're either with us or against us is your mantra. You either join team 1 or join team 2. You are not allowed to have thoughts or opinions without association with either team. Everything you believe must conform to one of these two teams. And when you identified as belonging to one of these two teams neither team needs to listen to you because they know what those teams believe. So simply by labeling you they don't need to listen or understand you.
This is what your statement is really all about. Intellectual laziness and absurd 21st century human tribalism.
I am not a member of team 1 or team 2 you pathetic primate. I am trying to discuss a complex issue and morons like you can't stop foaming at the mouth to fight your sad little holy wars.
I am talking about science. Not your filthy politics.
Tell me more about what you mean. I like Vinge... haven't read any of his books in awhile but they're always good fun. Tell me what about my thinking process or style seems to match something in this book you are citing?
I'm going to get a copy of it now. I go through a lot of books.
on the skeptics and denialist point... I was referring to the political factions in this discussion... not the literal meaning of the those two words.
The people that oppose the AGW position generally call themselves skeptics... and the pro AGW position refers to those same people as denalists. It is the politics.
As to European misdeeds versus American... I'll take that challenge any day. You want to compare the last 300 years of American history versus the last 300 years of european history? I love that you people think you can just snip everything off at the end of WW2 which was the last time you went on a murder spree.
And why was that the last time? Because the US has been protecting you ever since. Your countries were exhausted by WW2 and easy pickings for the Soviets. England literally begged the US to back up western european defenses to stop Stalin from eating pieces of europe at will.
And we did. We fought another war in your name. For the third time in this century we came to correct YOUR fuck ups. Has europe ever had to come to help the US in the Americas? But we came in WW1. We came in WW2. And we held the line against the soviets until their sick empire collapsed.
It was only because of American supply planes that there was a western Berlin. You are aware of the berlin airlift? Fleets of American supply planes flew food, medicine, etc into western Berlin. The roads were cut off by Russian forces. And really, had the US just left at the end of that war... how many other countries would have fallen to Stalin? He nearly took Greece despite our efforts.
And while you rebuilt... we fought... we fought the Soviets in the dark during the cold war. It was often subtle and vicious. It was a test of wills and resources. And in all those years you grew fat and stupid. You now think yourselves to be beyond war and violence. A more evolved people when really the only reason your countries even exist is because we protected, supported, and supplied them.
And how have you repaid us? With this pathetic ideology that labels its friends as evil. That you even presume to judge us in this manner despite utterly failing to make any real effort to step up over the years is laughable.
As to Saddam... that is all tied up in complex geopolitical issues of nuclear containment. I really doubt you understand the importance of that point.
Now was the US correct to go in and clip Saddam? In retrospect, no. However, there is no evidence that they actually lied. Your statement that they knew better and lied is an opinion or an assumption at best. You do not know. I do not know. What we know is what they said and what turned out to be the truth. Simply being incorrect does not automatically mean someone lied.
If Saddam had nuclear weapons then our actions would have been justified. He did not. But there is reasonable grounds to assume that he had some kind of secret weapons program. The man was pathological about keeping his little secrets. And those secrets expanded in our minds to fill our deepest fears. Fears that most Europeans don't have because you didn't fight the cold war and have taken almost no role in nuclear containment.
The US has been trying to stop WW3 from happening since WW2. This has put a stress on our culture, our economy, our politics... and people like you mock us in YOUR ignorance.
This isn't easy. We spend trillions trying to keep peace. We could retreat to our continent and leave you to your fate. We could have done that in WW1. We could have done it in WW2. We could have done it in the cold war. And we can still do it. Just back off and let you play with the Russians, the Chinese, the various middle eastern factions, etc. We could send a memo to the world that reads "We wash our hands of them... do what you will." And you, sir... would be fucked.
My father's generation and the generation before his cared about your continent. They cared about the great western alliance. They wanted to preserve you even when you were so fixated on killing yourselves.
My generation is different. When we finally get into power... we're going to back off... and if you don't wise up... we are going to watch you burn.
So. Look forward to that. Best case you'll re-militarize and finally start carrying your own water. And little twits like you will get the stupid shock
Very few people rural or otherwise in the US believe evolution is a myth or that god won't let GW happen.
As to what I mean, no I do not mean black people. I mean people in the urban ghetto. You have people of many colors including white living in those places and their statistics are all pretty terrible. Crime, education, health, employment, etc. All bad.
Your pathetic attempt to label me a racist when I have made no racial comments what so ever is typical of your ideology. Whenever you lose you call the opposition a bigot. Because after all... anyone that disagrees with you, knows things you don't know, or have different thoughts about anything must be a bigot.
What sad little people like you don't grasp is that you've been brainwashed. What you're actually calling me is a heretic... an unbeliever... and infidel. You are not judging me morally. You are merely labeling me as being outside your faith. Your reaction to that observation demonstrates that ironically you share more in common with the fundamentalists then me.
I form my own opinions. I think for myself. I examine things and try to come up with new associations.
You simply open wide and swallow everything. And you presume to judge me? Comical.
You wrote a lot to disguise an inversion of my point. That is not acceptable, valid, logical, or indeed honorable.
My point was not that AGW does not exist or is not happening.
My point was that you cannot just say walrus are here, ice isn't here, so global warming caused walruses to be here.
That was pretty clear. You've largely backed up my point about the political elements in these topics. You are not a positive influence on rational discussions. You promote factionalism, tribalism, political gainsaying, and other primate pissing contests into what should be a rational scientific discussion.
Trying desperately to make a point without getting buried in trolls, bigots, and fucktards.
Any issue that touches on something the politicals cares about always turns into a shit throwing contest. I could just stay out of it but things need to be said. Moderation. Patience. Due process.
And it is very hard to make that argument when the trolls, bigots, and fucktards are all primed like greased mouse traps to snap at just about anything. So I am trying to be sensitive to that while at the same time making my point. Were I to be direct then I would have had 40 replies to this post instead of just 15. Think about that. 15 fucking replies to this post. So yes... I tried to damp it down a bit.
Let us not pretend that all scientists are professional and that some of them are not political activists that use their role to promote political causes... or even personally enrich themselves. They're still people and not immune from bias.
Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory. It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming.
Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy. But that isn't my point. I am not saying AGW isn't happening. I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related. If you can show it to be related... scientifically... that is with evidence... sorting for cause and not correlation... then fine. But did that happen here? They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.
... is that data isn't evidence. And the simple fact that most people don't understand that simply underscores the danger of it.
Now, science must be empirical. It must be based on observation, experimentation, and the results should drive theory.
However, something that has been worrying for years is a lazy tendency for people... scientists included... to grab a data set, point out some correlating variables, and then conclude a discovery... or propose a theory that is supposed to be taken seriously.
That is wrong. And we all know that is wrong. I'm fine with it if we don't take the study seriously or if they don't just cite correlative statistics. But they do that with depressing consistency. Correlative statistics are not evidence. It is data. But basically anything is data. Having data isn't an accomplishment. It is having some readings or information that could mean anything including nothing at all.
Serious efforts have to be taken to ensure the data is pure of distorting influences. And then you have to set up devil's advocate tests/experiments to make sure that there is some causation going on in the data. Often as not, this isn't happening especially with the "data driven" science which in so far I have seen is code for people that sit at their computers calling up spreadsheets and then concluding things from them. That isn't good enough.
Here someone is going to say I know nothing and that people that call up spreadsheets are doing entirely valid science. Which ignores all sorts of points such them not knowing exactly where the data came from or how it was collected. Oh sure, they might have some notation that says how that was done... but who really knows. Scientists need to be willing to get their hands dirty and get the data themselves. The arm chair stuff is good to a point when the data is known to be good or when someone else went to the effort to sort out all the problems with it. But that isn't terribly common. Most of the sets have issues even after being declared good.
Anyway... I hope this all works out for the best and that my fears in this matter are unfounded. Truly. I just worry that this is going to be more of a giant waste of time.
I've lived in many places including major cities and you'll find ignorant people in the heart of major cities as well.
Again, the majority of the US's negative education stats are concentrated in our urban ghettos... not our rural communities. You have people in the urban ghettos that cannot read. Some don't even speak english. And if you want to go through their knowledge of history, science, etc you'll find they know next to nothing.
Exclude this population from US education stats and we are comparable to any other first world country and quite a bit better then most.
The rural communities in the US perform quite well on SATs and ACT exams. They also have a relatively high probability of attending college. They are not stupid or ignorant.
It is the ignorance of people unfamilar with US demographics to assume our often poor eductation stats are the result of our tiny rural population and not the growing urban ghettos. However, the stats are there for anyone to see. It isn't politically correct to point this out. We are taught to ignore all imperfections from that portion of our society. They can murder themselves by the thousands and we barely notice.
In my city we have about 400 murders per year. Of those, about 380 of them occur within or by someone in the urban ghetto. My city has millions of people living in it and practically all the violence comes from a very small portion of it. A part of my city that is almost literally a war zone. But no one notices or says anything about it. It is business as usual. Our city policy have paramilitary forces that deal with problems on occasion. Though more commonly they just let the thugs kill each other. It is more efficient.
That is what my country is or has become. I am not proud of it and really would like to change this but as I said... it isn't politically correct. The word of the day is to ignore it all and hope it goes away. It gets worse every year.
So I am leaving my city. Leaving all cities in my country because they're all suffering from the same problem. I'm going to a small town. It has internet, big backyards, and friendly people... Many people are leaving the cities as well. It is for the best. Why do we need the cities at this point anyway? Between the internet and air travel why have ultra concentrations of people.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I want net neutrality. I'd prefer if it came through market competition rather then government fiat because I worry that that will lead to the FCC regulating the hell out... and that could lead to the internet being less of a free place. But I want our data to flow neutrally through the internet.
That said... the FCC really has no right to take sides in any political debate. That isn't their place. They are not to be advocates of any position. They are to enforce the law. They're police officers for communication. They are not community organizers.
Beyond that, I'll just make the comment that while I do think data should be neutral there should be some flexibility for VoIP and other types of data that require low latency. Compared to something like bit torrent or netflix streaming... you just don't need low latency for that. You just need bandwidth. If your data is delayed by half a second but it is all going into a cache then who cares.
I do NOT think this should be a paid service where you get your communication slowed down if you don't pay and get a faster channel if you do pay. Rather, I think that the communication should declare its needs to the network. And that communication protocols that do not need low latency should voluntarily declare that they are happy with high latency.
I got like 30 messages... and the stupid site won't let me respond to things in a rapid manner. So I have to do a message then come back a half hour later or so and answer another. That leads to me losing track of what I was talking about at some interval. The site is really quite terrible about keeping comments together. This whole "lets have messages disassociated from the thread when responded to" nonsense is silly.
As to my agenda... I really just want to discuss the science and not let this get sucked down the AGW rabbit hole. I find it distressing that both sides have this "with us or against us" attitude that is really quite hostile and unhelpful to any kind of rational discussion.
Listen to yourself as an example here. Just saying. A pinch of introspection would go a long way.
thank you for this... this sort of thing is exactly what we need to start discussing this scientifically. Past records. Very good. Good man.
Here is something of interest provided by "bane2571" in the thread:
https://polarbearscience.files...
I'm not sure of the providence of this citation but it looks authentic. Consider that this might be a normal behavior pattern amongst walruses. I don't know a lot of about them. I suspect you know no more then I do about them. I am quite humble about my understandings of their natures. You would do well to be equally humble.
Neither of us are experts and we are both prey for political interest groups that want to brain wash us. The media is a awash in propaganda from all sides. Keep that in mind and try to remain cautious of where your information comes from. It appears for example that this walrus statement comes mostly from the WWF. That is not a scientific organization but rather an environmental activist organization. I am not saying they are wrong but they have a history of very biased analysis.
The most extreme example I think would be the application of the Drake Equation to species extinction rates. If you are familiar with the drake equation, then you know it cannot be used scientifically for any purpose what so ever. It is fallacious and was known to be so almost as soon as it was created in the 1970s. The author of the equation itself disavows it. And yet it has been used to estimate species extinction on earth. That is how you get numbers like "5 million species extinct this year." They're using the drake equation. No organization that uses that equation with a straight face can be taken seriously. Period.
Alright... let us compare the sea ice then first:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sea...
I compared the two most distant dates in the system. 1995 December with 2013 December. Look at the LACK of a difference.
Now am I saying there is no difference? I wouldn't know... but the images are almost identical. Look at the extent of the ice around Alaska in both images. Basically the same.
Now again. I am not saying that the data = reality. However, you want to get scientific, then you need to base your argument on something.
So part "B" I think this is... that the sea ice is reduced... seems questionable to me. Let me get something from 2014 though just so we're talking about this year.
Okay, the latest this data covers is July of this year. I am comparing that to 1996,97,98,99... they're all a little different but the ice pack in july of 2014 does not appear unusual. So why were walruses not beaching themselves then?
As to ocean acidification, that doesn't back up your argument. That just gives you one more thing to try and prove. Furthermore, I dont' think it has anything to do with beaching. After all, that has something to do with food sources... not whether the walruses actually find the water toxic. But you know what... if you can show me something about ocean acidification harming the bodies or irritating the bodies of walruses then we might have something to talk about. Short of that, what you have is that it hurts some shell fish.
Keep an open mind. I could be totally wrong and you could be the person that shows me how wrong I am. But by the same token you could be wrong too. Keep an open mind and we can have a real discussion. ;)
The patterns in data are not data. The data is not the analysis of the data which would be a pattern in the data.
Your lack of basic reading comprehension has run out of my patience with you.
Good day.
And if most scientists stuck to mathematics then they could get away with that too. Do anything else and you're going to need a bit more.
You're not talking about science. You're talking about politics. It is sad that people continuously confuse the politics of science with science itself.
No, they explained why they guess that. If they did science they'd look at past records and see if they beached themselves in past periods of low ice.
In this case we have periods with less ice then today and they didn't beach themselves. We also have periods of more ice where they did.
So... you see the problem.
You're linking A to B to C. And above you tried to say that "well global warming is real so...". I didn't say anything about global warming. We're talking about fucking walruses. And the first link is that "A" Walruses beach themselves is linked to "B" low sea ice... which fails on analysis.
So you can't even get to "C" which is "because global warming"... Because the link between low sea ice and walruses doesn't pan out. They have beached themselves with more ice and not beached themselves with less ice. So "less ice" = "beaching" fails.
This is what happens when you assume, think reasonable guesses are the same thing as science, and then persist to defend positions which are based on "nothing."
Here is what I've asked of people. Do the fucking science and stop assuming things. OR do not claim your assumptions are science. This is not unreasonable.
Measurements CAN have meaning... but they do not require meaning. I can take measurements that don't mean anything all day. I can set the output of my phone's accelerometer to output to a spreadsheet... then record the data. Will the data mean anything? I can take data furthermore in completely irresponsible ways and it will still be data. I can cherry pick my results and it is still data.
Data in and of itself is not meaningful. Data must be collected in a certain way to preserve its integrity and then it must be analyzed in a specific way to turn it into something meaningful. But prior to that point... it has only the POTENTIAL of being meaningful. Prior to that point... no meaning.
... Lets steal from microsoft and then talk about it on a communication protocol they completely control.
What.
Could.
Possibly.
Go.
Wrong?
Use ventrilo or team speak or mumble or something. Send in an email; go to this server, use this user name, join this channel.
Easy.
Can the FBI take over the server or pull logs from it? Maybe... depends on where it is... there are chat servers all over the world. Use one based in Brazil or something. It will slow them down. And try not to use the same server more then once. Jump around. Do different stuff. Be paranoid. it isn't if they really are out to get you... and if you're a group of hackers stealing secrets from a well connected multi billion dollar industry... then they are out to get you. These guys were sloppy and paid the price for it.
so by this theory, the walruses should beach when the ice is at its lowest... that is when there is the least ice? Historically that hasn't happened. Scientists have been watching the walruses and we've had years of lower ice cover with less beachings and years with higher ice cover with more beachings. I can cite evidence to that effect if you like. So you don't even have correlation much less causation.
So no... you cannot simply infer A leads to B leads to C without actually doing science in between. You can ASSUME this all you like and that is fine. But don't call it science. You didn't do any science to conclude that. No one did. There is no scientific opinion on that because no one has studied it in that way.
End of story. If you want it to be studied... then go do that. Since you probably only care about fodder for your little political cause, I doubt you'll spend any effort on the issue. The search for truth or fascination with the natural world is not something you probably share with me. You just want to score some meaningless points on an internet forum for your cause. Meaningless.
I am not your enemy. I am simply not one the koolaid drinkers and halfwits chanting along to your mantra. That does not make me wrong, evil, or ignorant.
We can play words games if you like... I'm quite good at them. But I frankly find the prospect to be boring. So I'll just win.
Data (/ËdeÉtÉ(TM)/ DAY-tÉ(TM), /ËdætÉ(TM)/ DA-tÉ(TM), or /ËdÉ'ËtÉ(TM)/ DAH-tÉ(TM))[1] is a set of values of qualitative or quantitative variables; restated, pieces of data are individual pieces of information. Data in computing (or data processing) is represented in a structure that is often tabular (represented by rows and columns), a tree (a set of nodes with parent-children relationship), or a graph (a set of connected nodes). Data is typically the result of measurements and can be visualized using graphs or images.
Data is simply information. Data does not imply analysis or even meaning. If I collected all the numbers from a random number generator... that file would be "data" just as much as anything else.
You have a different definition for data? Great... then we're having a semantic debate which is possibly the most boring dispute possible. By your definition of data I will probably agree with you. If you accepted my definition then you'd probably agree with me. Who cares.
Next issue.
This happens in every polarlized discussion. You're either with us or against us is your mantra. You either join team 1 or join team 2. You are not allowed to have thoughts or opinions without association with either team. Everything you believe must conform to one of these two teams. And when you identified as belonging to one of these two teams neither team needs to listen to you because they know what those teams believe. So simply by labeling you they don't need to listen or understand you.
This is what your statement is really all about. Intellectual laziness and absurd 21st century human tribalism.
I am not a member of team 1 or team 2 you pathetic primate. I am trying to discuss a complex issue and morons like you can't stop foaming at the mouth to fight your sad little holy wars.
I am talking about science. Not your filthy politics.
Good day.
Tell me more about what you mean. I like Vinge... haven't read any of his books in awhile but they're always good fun. Tell me what about my thinking process or style seems to match something in this book you are citing?
I'm going to get a copy of it now. I go through a lot of books.
on the skeptics and denialist point... I was referring to the political factions in this discussion... not the literal meaning of the those two words.
The people that oppose the AGW position generally call themselves skeptics... and the pro AGW position refers to those same people as denalists. It is the politics.
As to European misdeeds versus American... I'll take that challenge any day. You want to compare the last 300 years of American history versus the last 300 years of european history? I love that you people think you can just snip everything off at the end of WW2 which was the last time you went on a murder spree.
And why was that the last time? Because the US has been protecting you ever since. Your countries were exhausted by WW2 and easy pickings for the Soviets. England literally begged the US to back up western european defenses to stop Stalin from eating pieces of europe at will.
And we did. We fought another war in your name. For the third time in this century we came to correct YOUR fuck ups. Has europe ever had to come to help the US in the Americas? But we came in WW1. We came in WW2. And we held the line against the soviets until their sick empire collapsed.
It was only because of American supply planes that there was a western Berlin. You are aware of the berlin airlift? Fleets of American supply planes flew food, medicine, etc into western Berlin. The roads were cut off by Russian forces. And really, had the US just left at the end of that war... how many other countries would have fallen to Stalin? He nearly took Greece despite our efforts.
And while you rebuilt... we fought... we fought the Soviets in the dark during the cold war. It was often subtle and vicious. It was a test of wills and resources. And in all those years you grew fat and stupid. You now think yourselves to be beyond war and violence. A more evolved people when really the only reason your countries even exist is because we protected, supported, and supplied them.
And how have you repaid us? With this pathetic ideology that labels its friends as evil. That you even presume to judge us in this manner despite utterly failing to make any real effort to step up over the years is laughable.
As to Saddam... that is all tied up in complex geopolitical issues of nuclear containment. I really doubt you understand the importance of that point.
Now was the US correct to go in and clip Saddam? In retrospect, no. However, there is no evidence that they actually lied. Your statement that they knew better and lied is an opinion or an assumption at best. You do not know. I do not know. What we know is what they said and what turned out to be the truth. Simply being incorrect does not automatically mean someone lied.
If Saddam had nuclear weapons then our actions would have been justified. He did not. But there is reasonable grounds to assume that he had some kind of secret weapons program. The man was pathological about keeping his little secrets. And those secrets expanded in our minds to fill our deepest fears. Fears that most Europeans don't have because you didn't fight the cold war and have taken almost no role in nuclear containment.
The US has been trying to stop WW3 from happening since WW2. This has put a stress on our culture, our economy, our politics... and people like you mock us in YOUR ignorance.
This isn't easy. We spend trillions trying to keep peace. We could retreat to our continent and leave you to your fate. We could have done that in WW1. We could have done it in WW2. We could have done it in the cold war. And we can still do it. Just back off and let you play with the Russians, the Chinese, the various middle eastern factions, etc. We could send a memo to the world that reads "We wash our hands of them... do what you will." And you, sir... would be fucked.
My father's generation and the generation before his cared about your continent. They cared about the great western alliance. They wanted to preserve you even when you were so fixated on killing yourselves.
My generation is different. When we finally get into power... we're going to back off... and if you don't wise up... we are going to watch you burn.
So. Look forward to that. Best case you'll re-militarize and finally start carrying your own water. And little twits like you will get the stupid shock
Very few people rural or otherwise in the US believe evolution is a myth or that god won't let GW happen.
As to what I mean, no I do not mean black people. I mean people in the urban ghetto. You have people of many colors including white living in those places and their statistics are all pretty terrible. Crime, education, health, employment, etc. All bad.
Your pathetic attempt to label me a racist when I have made no racial comments what so ever is typical of your ideology. Whenever you lose you call the opposition a bigot. Because after all... anyone that disagrees with you, knows things you don't know, or have different thoughts about anything must be a bigot.
What sad little people like you don't grasp is that you've been brainwashed. What you're actually calling me is a heretic... an unbeliever... and infidel. You are not judging me morally. You are merely labeling me as being outside your faith. Your reaction to that observation demonstrates that ironically you share more in common with the fundamentalists then me.
I form my own opinions. I think for myself. I examine things and try to come up with new associations.
You simply open wide and swallow everything. And you presume to judge me? Comical.
You wrote a lot to disguise an inversion of my point. That is not acceptable, valid, logical, or indeed honorable.
My point was not that AGW does not exist or is not happening.
My point was that you cannot just say walrus are here, ice isn't here, so global warming caused walruses to be here.
That was pretty clear. You've largely backed up my point about the political elements in these topics. You are not a positive influence on rational discussions. You promote factionalism, tribalism, political gainsaying, and other primate pissing contests into what should be a rational scientific discussion.
Good day, sir.
Trying desperately to make a point without getting buried in trolls, bigots, and fucktards.
Any issue that touches on something the politicals cares about always turns into a shit throwing contest. I could just stay out of it but things need to be said. Moderation. Patience. Due process.
And it is very hard to make that argument when the trolls, bigots, and fucktards are all primed like greased mouse traps to snap at just about anything. So I am trying to be sensitive to that while at the same time making my point. Were I to be direct then I would have had 40 replies to this post instead of just 15. Think about that. 15 fucking replies to this post. So yes... I tried to damp it down a bit.
Let us not pretend that all scientists are professional and that some of them are not political activists that use their role to promote political causes... or even personally enrich themselves. They're still people and not immune from bias.
Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory. It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming.
Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy. But that isn't my point. I am not saying AGW isn't happening. I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related. If you can show it to be related... scientifically... that is with evidence... sorting for cause and not correlation... then fine. But did that happen here? They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.
... is that data isn't evidence. And the simple fact that most people don't understand that simply underscores the danger of it.
Now, science must be empirical. It must be based on observation, experimentation, and the results should drive theory.
However, something that has been worrying for years is a lazy tendency for people... scientists included... to grab a data set, point out some correlating variables, and then conclude a discovery... or propose a theory that is supposed to be taken seriously.
That is wrong. And we all know that is wrong. I'm fine with it if we don't take the study seriously or if they don't just cite correlative statistics. But they do that with depressing consistency. Correlative statistics are not evidence. It is data. But basically anything is data. Having data isn't an accomplishment. It is having some readings or information that could mean anything including nothing at all.
Serious efforts have to be taken to ensure the data is pure of distorting influences. And then you have to set up devil's advocate tests/experiments to make sure that there is some causation going on in the data. Often as not, this isn't happening especially with the "data driven" science which in so far I have seen is code for people that sit at their computers calling up spreadsheets and then concluding things from them. That isn't good enough.
Here someone is going to say I know nothing and that people that call up spreadsheets are doing entirely valid science. Which ignores all sorts of points such them not knowing exactly where the data came from or how it was collected. Oh sure, they might have some notation that says how that was done... but who really knows. Scientists need to be willing to get their hands dirty and get the data themselves. The arm chair stuff is good to a point when the data is known to be good or when someone else went to the effort to sort out all the problems with it. But that isn't terribly common. Most of the sets have issues even after being declared good.
Anyway... I hope this all works out for the best and that my fears in this matter are unfounded. Truly. I just worry that this is going to be more of a giant waste of time.
Valid. That said, the government needs to be more careful.
I've lived in many places including major cities and you'll find ignorant people in the heart of major cities as well.
Again, the majority of the US's negative education stats are concentrated in our urban ghettos... not our rural communities. You have people in the urban ghettos that cannot read. Some don't even speak english. And if you want to go through their knowledge of history, science, etc you'll find they know next to nothing.
Exclude this population from US education stats and we are comparable to any other first world country and quite a bit better then most.
The rural communities in the US perform quite well on SATs and ACT exams. They also have a relatively high probability of attending college. They are not stupid or ignorant.
It is the ignorance of people unfamilar with US demographics to assume our often poor eductation stats are the result of our tiny rural population and not the growing urban ghettos. However, the stats are there for anyone to see. It isn't politically correct to point this out. We are taught to ignore all imperfections from that portion of our society. They can murder themselves by the thousands and we barely notice.
In my city we have about 400 murders per year. Of those, about 380 of them occur within or by someone in the urban ghetto. My city has millions of people living in it and practically all the violence comes from a very small portion of it. A part of my city that is almost literally a war zone. But no one notices or says anything about it. It is business as usual. Our city policy have paramilitary forces that deal with problems on occasion. Though more commonly they just let the thugs kill each other. It is more efficient.
That is what my country is or has become. I am not proud of it and really would like to change this but as I said... it isn't politically correct. The word of the day is to ignore it all and hope it goes away. It gets worse every year.
So I am leaving my city. Leaving all cities in my country because they're all suffering from the same problem. I'm going to a small town. It has internet, big backyards, and friendly people... Many people are leaving the cities as well. It is for the best. Why do we need the cities at this point anyway? Between the internet and air travel why have ultra concentrations of people.