I think you're not grasping that the whole idea of this is that the identity is verified by some process that is difficult or nearly impossible to fake.
As such you will not just make another account and pop back in... you'll be gone.
Do you think China has a problem with internet trolls on their social networking sites?
As to perception, its more a question of maturity.
There is a guy across the street that plays a saxophone about twice a month sometimes pretty loudly. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't occasionally annoying. But do you want to live in a world where you can't play your saxophone every once in awhile without a bunch of annoying people coming by to give you a hard time?
I don't... So I make a point of ignoring it when it happens and hope that when I do whatever it is that is annoying others will be just as understanding.
The internet is the same way. If you shut down all the trolls you'll also give all the would be police statists all the tools they'll ever need to shut down anyone they don't like for any reason what so ever.
Choose.
I will ignore the saxophone because I'm not a prick.
Just because one part of the government COULD find out doesn't mean your local congressman has the pull to use those resources.
Piss off the president... sure... the NSA might be all over you. Heck, the IRS probably will be auditing you by dinner. But annoy the mayor? Less likely.
In any case, if we maintain our relative anonymity then it will be complicated even for the president to find out. Which is in the public interest.
Yes. And it should be understood that the politicians and various political and corporate entities that want you to shut up on occasion will use the same tactics or worse to silence you if they can find you.
This is currently a great frustration for them. They have tried to do this to a few people and publicly lamented that they just couldn't find these people to shut them up.
We let this happen and they will come after us at some point.
Further... the whole thing is really being spearheaded by corporations that are finally having to admit that their vast user databases are mostly full of junk data that isn't actually worth anything. They've tricked their investors into thinking they had a lot of valuable information there... and possibly it is valuable... but not 100 billion dollars of value. And that is their problem.
So they're trying sweeten their databases by filling them with real information.
1. The change is happening on companies that make money by connecting advertisers with potential customers. A large part of their revenue comes directly or indirectly through data mining their user base. If their user base is bogus names and bogus information then the value of the data mining is less. Therefore it is in the interest of these companies to get real information in their databases. This is the primary reason this is desirable.
2. Smaller websites that are if anything more known for thoughtful commentary have no such program.
3. There has been a consistent effort by politicians to get identities put on internet comments so they can file law suits or other forms of heavy handed harassment against anyone that would dare criticize them.
4. While internet trolls are an issue, anyone that has been on the internet for awhile gets used to them. You just don't take them seriously anymore. You recognize them for what they are and then you "nothing" them. They are deleted if only from your own perception.
5. It is telling that leading the charge to have identities on the internet are entities such as the Chinese government etc... This is who you're praising.
Will we gain something by having real identities on the internet? Yes. But we will lose a great deal more. This is a fool's bargain. We would do well to protect our anonymity if only because it will protect our ability to speak our minds. Those that advocate for real names are advocates for censorship. Point blank.
Now obviously I couldn't just make a graph up out of no where and have you accept it.
And I suspect there are different sources you either respect or don't respect.
What are they and why? I want you to commit to certain standards so if I can find information you will be forced to either contradict yourself or accept it.
From my perspective there is no point finding information until I know you have to accept it. And the only way to know that is if you commit to given standards that I meet.
So... whom will you accept information from and why?
Please use empirical justifications since we are talking about science.
Simply saying "i trust this guy" for no apparent reason is arbitrary.
Except for the IPCC is not no one and given that they are your primary backers and if that political movement had not backed you then you wouldn't have this laughable superiority complex... it is a little funny that you're bravely carrying on despite the political power you have used to sustain that arrogance has collapsed.
I will ask you again... what would I have to show specifically to prove a pause?
I don't believe you're arguing in good faith. I think whatever I say you'll dismiss indifferent to legitimacy. Therefore I won't bother until you've committed to accept evidence given certain conditions.
If you can't do that then you'll be admitting I am right.
So which is it? Do you have conditions or am I right?
"Everyone knows this is wrong" is not a scientific argument. It is a political argument. At one point everyone knew that germs weren't a real thing. Everyone knowing something doesn't make it true in reality. It just makes a commonly held position. And scientists themselves are not immune from this as pointed out... doctors used to think germs weren't real. You are saying "we all agree so it must be true" which is a logical fallacy.
Please either make a scientific argument or signal that you wish to have a political discussion in which case I will shift to a political response.
Choose.
Really... the mistake is just being so arrogant and dismissive on the issue. You don't have the grounds to sustain that position and its very easy for me to show it as invalid.
So... you can either back up your position which as you just pointed out... you won't be able to do... or you can start being reasonable.
Right because the denial industry started an international pressure campaign, leveraged the UN, rallied politicians from around the world, and famously ran under the motto that the "debate was over"...
Sorry, but if you're going to deny the obvious then we have nothing to discuss.
This is not a scientific dispute. It is a political one. And it will not be a scientific dispute until you and those like you drop the politics.
And you have to appreciate that the interface between the scientists and the public are often politicians and the media.
The scientists have not disowned these groups and so they effectively represent the scientists. Who do you think is raising the money for the scientists in the first place?
You can't have it both ways. If those people are getting your message out and raising money then you have to take some responsibility for the way they do it.
OR you have to publicly correct them.
Short of that, it is reasonable to assume that they are selling the scientist's message since that is what they say they're doing and the scientists are not contradicting them.
The whole way AGW has been sold to the public has been extremely coercive, manipulative, and heavy handed.
I'm not saying they're wrong... but there is a big backlash against AGW right now and most of it is caused not by the scientists claims but rather by the tactics used by the politicians and media to sell it.
It would be very helpful if the scientists would publicly disown these groups and stand on their own.
Short of that, the whole discussion is unavoidably tainted by the political factions and tactics used to promote it.
You can see how it is almost impossible to have a purely scientific discussion on the matter when you've got Al Gore running around and his gaggle of celebrity opinion makers telling everyone what to think.
Most people respect scientists. But an ex vice president that "invented the internet"... not so much.
As to the IPCC... that was held up as AGW movement's symbol of their consensus.
If you're throwing that under the bus then I think you're going to have to accept a more humble position on this matter unless you're willing to go into details.
You say you don't like politics. But your argument basically boils down to "lots of people agree and trust me"... well... that's a political argument not a scientific one.
Do you have a scientific argument? Or shall we talk politics?
That's fine so far as that one example goes. However, by the same token you can't point at a hot summer in DC and say that is proof of AGW either.
Its cuts both ways.
And you'll have to admit that the AGW crowd has pointed at any place that has been a little warm as evidence.
What is more we get little islands in the tropics... sand islands without a rock foundation eroding away... and they'll frequently claim that that is AGW as well. When clearly its just erosion.
And then we hear stuff like "well, the water might be rising in some parts of the world but not others. Which makes no god damn sense since all the oceans are linked together.
There is just a lot of cherry picking going on in this issue and I am very sensitive to anyone trying it on me.
I'd much rather we establish a baseline for what is considered evidence and then that be applied to ALL sides on the issue indiscriminately with no ifs ands or buts. Short of that, its very hard to trust whether someone is making a good argument or if they're just carefully invalidating all the evidence they don't like.
Actually the IPCC admitted it and further said they were unsure of why it had happened.
I can provide citations to that effect if you want me to show you how google works.
Please don't waste my time with nonsense. There has been a pause. Possibly the proxy data hasn't shown the same pause but the proxy data doesn't show causal links and the weighting of it is controversial.
Being stubborn and dismissive is how the AGW movement got into trouble in the first place.
Respect the discourse. Simply being convinced you're right is not actually a substitute for an argument.
If it snowing in DC is not relevant then how are your proxies relevant? You're just cherry picking at that point and saying one thing is relevant but another is not.
I'm not saying the sun is causing climate change... but its input to the system so radically dwarfs anything else that it can't help being relevant.
Even a tiny change in that input would have to have an impact. Now has the sun's input changed? Maybe not. I really don't know. But I'm dubious of any claim that its not worth incorporating into models. Especially when all the models didn't account for the pause in AGW that we've had in the last 10 years.
There hasn't been an increase since 1998. None of the models saw that coming. And that alone tells you that the models need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Slashdot Mirror
If they want to scare MS then they need to get behind a linux distro. Any of the polished ones it doesn't really matter.
You've got Steam pushing a linux gaming line... why would you go for anything besides linux IF you're trying to unseat MS?
This is idiotic and doomed to tragic failure.
So... you think trolls have infinite cell phones...
Okay.
I think you're not grasping that the whole idea of this is that the identity is verified by some process that is difficult or nearly impossible to fake.
As such you will not just make another account and pop back in... you'll be gone.
Do you think China has a problem with internet trolls on their social networking sites?
Think again.
No, face book and google already demand your phone number. Are you faking your phone number? Because they send a text to it for confirmation.
How are you spoofing those 5 times a day as moderators ban you over and over again?
In any case... its a bad idea that is being implemented under false pretenses.
So destroy the internet to get your way.
Do you want to split the baby in half to get your share?
Those that hate the internet will vote to destroy it.
I don't.
Do you hate the internet? Do you want to destroy it? Remove anonymity and you'll have done it.
If its linked to your social security number or something then you're going to have a legitimately hard time spoofing that.
And probably be breakign some kind of federal law... so have fun with that.
As to perception, its more a question of maturity.
There is a guy across the street that plays a saxophone about twice a month sometimes pretty loudly. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't occasionally annoying. But do you want to live in a world where you can't play your saxophone every once in awhile without a bunch of annoying people coming by to give you a hard time?
I don't... So I make a point of ignoring it when it happens and hope that when I do whatever it is that is annoying others will be just as understanding.
The internet is the same way. If you shut down all the trolls you'll also give all the would be police statists all the tools they'll ever need to shut down anyone they don't like for any reason what so ever.
Choose.
I will ignore the saxophone because I'm not a prick.
You can make your own choice.
Just because one part of the government COULD find out doesn't mean your local congressman has the pull to use those resources.
Piss off the president... sure... the NSA might be all over you. Heck, the IRS probably will be auditing you by dinner. But annoy the mayor? Less likely.
In any case, if we maintain our relative anonymity then it will be complicated even for the president to find out. Which is in the public interest.
yeah but you only have to ban them once. That's the attraction of this to the anti troll people.
Yes. And it should be understood that the politicians and various political and corporate entities that want you to shut up on occasion will use the same tactics or worse to silence you if they can find you.
This is currently a great frustration for them. They have tried to do this to a few people and publicly lamented that they just couldn't find these people to shut them up.
We let this happen and they will come after us at some point.
Further... the whole thing is really being spearheaded by corporations that are finally having to admit that their vast user databases are mostly full of junk data that isn't actually worth anything. They've tricked their investors into thinking they had a lot of valuable information there... and possibly it is valuable... but not 100 billion dollars of value. And that is their problem.
So they're trying sweeten their databases by filling them with real information.
Bruce Wayne has the lawyers to beat that wrap...
Who am I you ask?... I am Batman!
1. The change is happening on companies that make money by connecting advertisers with potential customers. A large part of their revenue comes directly or indirectly through data mining their user base. If their user base is bogus names and bogus information then the value of the data mining is less. Therefore it is in the interest of these companies to get real information in their databases. This is the primary reason this is desirable.
2. Smaller websites that are if anything more known for thoughtful commentary have no such program.
3. There has been a consistent effort by politicians to get identities put on internet comments so they can file law suits or other forms of heavy handed harassment against anyone that would dare criticize them.
4. While internet trolls are an issue, anyone that has been on the internet for awhile gets used to them. You just don't take them seriously anymore. You recognize them for what they are and then you "nothing" them. They are deleted if only from your own perception.
5. It is telling that leading the charge to have identities on the internet are entities such as the Chinese government etc... This is who you're praising.
Will we gain something by having real identities on the internet? Yes. But we will lose a great deal more. This is a fool's bargain. We would do well to protect our anonymity if only because it will protect our ability to speak our minds. Those that advocate for real names are advocates for censorship. Point blank.
Okay.
Now obviously I couldn't just make a graph up out of no where and have you accept it.
And I suspect there are different sources you either respect or don't respect.
What are they and why? I want you to commit to certain standards so if I can find information you will be forced to either contradict yourself or accept it.
From my perspective there is no point finding information until I know you have to accept it. And the only way to know that is if you commit to given standards that I meet.
So... whom will you accept information from and why?
Please use empirical justifications since we are talking about science.
Simply saying "i trust this guy" for no apparent reason is arbitrary.
Except for the IPCC is not no one and given that they are your primary backers and if that political movement had not backed you then you wouldn't have this laughable superiority complex... it is a little funny that you're bravely carrying on despite the political power you have used to sustain that arrogance has collapsed.
I will ask you again... what would I have to show specifically to prove a pause?
I don't believe you're arguing in good faith. I think whatever I say you'll dismiss indifferent to legitimacy. Therefore I won't bother until you've committed to accept evidence given certain conditions.
If you can't do that then you'll be admitting I am right.
So which is it? Do you have conditions or am I right?
*grin*
As to how I started, the pause has been noted by several bodies including the IPCC.
Why don't you tell me what sort of evidence you'd need to admit the pause?
Specifically.
If you're going to be evasive then I'm getting my nails.
"Everyone knows this is wrong" is not a scientific argument. It is a political argument. At one point everyone knew that germs weren't a real thing. Everyone knowing something doesn't make it true in reality. It just makes a commonly held position. And scientists themselves are not immune from this as pointed out... doctors used to think germs weren't real. You are saying "we all agree so it must be true" which is a logical fallacy.
Please either make a scientific argument or signal that you wish to have a political discussion in which case I will shift to a political response.
Choose.
Really... the mistake is just being so arrogant and dismissive on the issue. You don't have the grounds to sustain that position and its very easy for me to show it as invalid.
So... you can either back up your position which as you just pointed out... you won't be able to do... or you can start being reasonable.
Right because the denial industry started an international pressure campaign, leveraged the UN, rallied politicians from around the world, and famously ran under the motto that the "debate was over"...
Sorry, but if you're going to deny the obvious then we have nothing to discuss.
This is not a scientific dispute. It is a political one. And it will not be a scientific dispute until you and those like you drop the politics.
Good day, sir.
It isn't just the media.
And you have to appreciate that the interface between the scientists and the public are often politicians and the media.
The scientists have not disowned these groups and so they effectively represent the scientists. Who do you think is raising the money for the scientists in the first place?
You can't have it both ways. If those people are getting your message out and raising money then you have to take some responsibility for the way they do it.
OR you have to publicly correct them.
Short of that, it is reasonable to assume that they are selling the scientist's message since that is what they say they're doing and the scientists are not contradicting them.
The whole way AGW has been sold to the public has been extremely coercive, manipulative, and heavy handed.
I'm not saying they're wrong... but there is a big backlash against AGW right now and most of it is caused not by the scientists claims but rather by the tactics used by the politicians and media to sell it.
It would be very helpful if the scientists would publicly disown these groups and stand on their own.
Short of that, the whole discussion is unavoidably tainted by the political factions and tactics used to promote it.
You can see how it is almost impossible to have a purely scientific discussion on the matter when you've got Al Gore running around and his gaggle of celebrity opinion makers telling everyone what to think.
Most people respect scientists. But an ex vice president that "invented the internet"... not so much.
As to the IPCC... that was held up as AGW movement's symbol of their consensus.
If you're throwing that under the bus then I think you're going to have to accept a more humble position on this matter unless you're willing to go into details.
You say you don't like politics. But your argument basically boils down to "lots of people agree and trust me"... well... that's a political argument not a scientific one.
Do you have a scientific argument? Or shall we talk politics?
That's fine so far as that one example goes. However, by the same token you can't point at a hot summer in DC and say that is proof of AGW either.
Its cuts both ways.
And you'll have to admit that the AGW crowd has pointed at any place that has been a little warm as evidence.
What is more we get little islands in the tropics... sand islands without a rock foundation eroding away... and they'll frequently claim that that is AGW as well. When clearly its just erosion.
And then we hear stuff like "well, the water might be rising in some parts of the world but not others. Which makes no god damn sense since all the oceans are linked together.
There is just a lot of cherry picking going on in this issue and I am very sensitive to anyone trying it on me.
I'd much rather we establish a baseline for what is considered evidence and then that be applied to ALL sides on the issue indiscriminately with no ifs ands or buts. Short of that, its very hard to trust whether someone is making a good argument or if they're just carefully invalidating all the evidence they don't like.
You see the problem.
Actually the IPCC admitted it and further said they were unsure of why it had happened.
I can provide citations to that effect if you want me to show you how google works.
Please don't waste my time with nonsense. There has been a pause. Possibly the proxy data hasn't shown the same pause but the proxy data doesn't show causal links and the weighting of it is controversial.
Being stubborn and dismissive is how the AGW movement got into trouble in the first place.
Respect the discourse. Simply being convinced you're right is not actually a substitute for an argument.
Really?
What would happen is solar output went down 5 percent?
Is there anything a normal person could see in reality that would give them proof one way or the other on a reasonable timescale?
Because if not, you're asking me to just trust you and give you 4 trillion dollars.
Not feeling it.
If it snowing in DC is not relevant then how are your proxies relevant? You're just cherry picking at that point and saying one thing is relevant but another is not.
Its all relevant.
All of it.
I'm not saying the sun is causing climate change... but its input to the system so radically dwarfs anything else that it can't help being relevant.
Even a tiny change in that input would have to have an impact. Now has the sun's input changed? Maybe not. I really don't know. But I'm dubious of any claim that its not worth incorporating into models. Especially when all the models didn't account for the pause in AGW that we've had in the last 10 years.
There hasn't been an increase since 1998. None of the models saw that coming. And that alone tells you that the models need to be taken with a grain of salt.