This thing is neat and maybe that's the best way to do things. But I thought Boeing was talking about additive manufacturing. I know they have ways of making titanium parts using additive manufacturing. I don't know if they're as strong as forged parts. But once that's cracked this forging process should become obsolete in aerospace. After all, why use solid pieces when you can have pieces articulated down to the level of bone. Fine latices of metal interwoven to build parts that have strength to weight ratios similar to what we see in nature. Sure, metal is stronger then bone. But bone is made out of relatively weak materials. If you build something with the same structure out of metal you could get something very strong and very light.
Still, very neat machine. I wonder if the Chinese have such a thing and it sounded like the Germans might?
It would be interesting to know if these machines are critical to a heavy industry economy.
Again, if you're not going to be reasonable then I see no reason to bother to be reasonable either.
So... lets see... how about you get pepper sprayed in the eyes if you have a mask on? Seems fair... That's the new program. You could of course complain but maybe I wore a mask too... I'll get one of those cool V for vendetta masks... oh man... I'm so cool now...
If you were half as free thinking as you thought you wouldn't mindlessly copy every stupid social and fashion fad. People didn't used to wear these masks all the time. But oh noes... stupid v for vendetta comes out... some idiots show up at a protest with that on because the movie wasn't that old yet... and now every twit that wants to feel provocative puts on that mask or something equally silly.
Take it off and there's no problem. Have your peaceful protest. Put it on and you're not protesting anymore.
Till then, I hope you like the taste of pepper spray... in your eyes.;-D
It didn't help that the guy made "arrangements" with powerful people to get the way greased. Powerful people have powerful enemies. And by using those powerful people you acquire their enemies.
They would have done better to keep their heads down and avoid involving themselves in political power struggles.
That said, if you need powerful allies simply to get the FCC to give you a f'ing license then that speaks to the inefficiency of the organization.
Apparently LS was right to the extent their machines were not interfering with those frequencies. But older and cheaper GPS devices were not shielded from powerful signals in other frequencies and so it interfered with them.
So, it's not entirely LS fault... it just doesn't matter.
And yet Obama is out there right now telling banks to offer loans to poor people to buy homes and do so at lower interest rates. Never mind that the banks don't want to do that because they think the people are bad credit risks and never mind that the banks would want a high interest rate to cover the risk.
You keep trying to eat your cake and have it too... and then you want seconds and thirds.
Doesn't work that way.
Stop telling the banks to loan money to people that are bad credit risks or you take the risk on your own head.
Period. This is why governments are all bailing the banks out and eating the debt. They pushed the banks to make the loans. The whole thing blew up in their faces. And now it's on the public dime.
Don't want that to happen again? Don't tell banks who to loan money to and how much to loan them and what rates should be charged. Cross the line and you're now in the banking business.
We're talking about seeing your face in a crowd in a public setting. We are not talking about tapping your private phone calls. That does require a warrant. I know the patriot act bs is trying to erode that but generally that requires a warrant.
Your face however is something I get to see.
If you want to hide your face in public then we have a problem. And if you want to be unreasonable about that, then two can play at that game.
Uncover your face and speak. You have nothing to fear from me unless you cover your face. I will assume ill intentions if you do. Bandits cover their faces. Robbers cover their faces. That will be my assumption. It is not in your interest to give people that impression.
You can either take my word for that or you can find out the hard way.
Don't buy cheap satellite spectrum to re-purpose for terrestrial use unless you've really thought it out.
None of this would have happened if he had bought more expensive but less problematic terrestrial spectrum or bought a patch of spectrum farther away from the GPS band.
His idea doubtless seemed clever at the time. And it was... if he didn't interfere with GPS. He did though even if it was all the fault of the GPS devices.
Collecting freely available information doesn't require a warrant any more then it requires a warrant to look your name up in a phone book and then write it down in a log.
Anyway, you're responding by being even more irrational. That's fine. Children sometimes do that it never works to plead with them to be sensible.
All I can do is smile at you and ignore you. If you want to have a real discussion on the issue you can be reasonable. If you don't want to be reasonable then I'm not going to make any effort to convince you otherwise. It's like dealing with north korea... you don't invite kim to the white house after he's made a nuclear test. If he wants one of those he can act like a sensible human being for about ten to twenty years.
Till then, you can just be mad about it. Please protest and if you get so angry that you feel the need to plant a bomb or deface property... remember we're watching and we know your name.:-)
As to the fed, no... Fannie and Freddie were on the hook for them. If you didn't back them then it all would have come crashing down on them anyway. All the government did was cut to the chase and absorbed debts they had ultimately underwrote.
As to my friends lying to me. Yes, I take your word over theirs. Not only do you know less then them but you also have no credibility beyond the common courtesy I extend to anyone. I'm afraid no one trusts a random person on the street over a trusted friend who is also a professional expert in the field. No one does that. That you would expect me to do that is frankly odd.
As to your argument that the government did no such thing, they're still doing it.
that was just the beginning. That was expended again and again under successive administrations and it encouraged banks to make loans to people that shouldn't have gotten loans.
The only people that don't know this are the ignorant and the self deluded. You might have simply been ignorant. You now know. If you deny it, then you're deluded.
My friends were not wrong or lying to me. They simply knew what they were talking about unlike you. I don't take kindly to people calling my friends liars especially when they're full of crap. So if you feel insulted, understand that you earned it. The anger or offense you might feel is something you should turn upon yourself and not upon me.
As to passing a law about capping student loan fees from the government, I think that's totally reasonable and I think we should do that. Of course, I don't think it will have the result you think it will have. But the end result will make me happy so I don't really care what you think is going to happen.
Six of one... half a dozen of the other. Potato... Pototo.
Having a file on someone isn't a violation of their rights and if you're protesting in front of city hall we have an interest in knowing who was there. Not to harass or intimidate them but simply to keep track of it in case things get ugly.
And they do get ugly sometimes. Sometimes protesters plant bombs. I'm sorry but we need to know.
And this isn't a f'ing third world country where you need to worry about the secret police disappearing you.
Anyway, if you're unwilling to accept any restrictions on masks at protests then I'm unwilling to vote against unreasonable restrictions against masks. So, in this case I'd vote in favor of ten years in jail for it even though I feel that's wildly unreasonable.
I find it unacceptable that masks are allowed at such events. Agree they're not allowed and I'll agree to very reasonable consequences such as a warning followed by a small fine if they don't stop it. But if you're going to be unreasonable then I'm going to be unreasonable.
I've seen throughout my life that if unreasonable people are not given concrete and consistent consequences they tend to continue. So here it is... unreasonable for unreasonable.
Again, there seems to be an implication that an average of bad information can be used to determine very accurate and precise information if there is enough of it. That seems specious.
And as to the modeling versus historical records, since scientists mix the two seamlessly when they present their argument to laymen exactly who's fault is it when laymen question both together.
I'm sure I'm making mistakes here but you need to hold the scientists accountable as well because the whole presentation has been badly botched.
First, they have you on camera? So? Only a problem if you do something illegal. Don't take a dump on police cars or expose yourself or break store windows and we don't have a problem.
Second, if people wear masks they're going to feel like they can get away with things. It encourages violence and mob behavior.
Third, you see people wearing masks at protests in third world countries where they worry about a secret police tracking them. This is not a reasonable concern in the first world.
Again, I wouldn't put these people in jail for wearing a mask. I would however pepper spray them in the eye. I really really really don't like masks at protests. You have a freedom of speech and assembly but not one to show up at city hall with a mob of masked crazies and intimidate everyone.
So you're telling me that you believe or it is proven or effective practice to get a tenth of a degree of precision in temperature by analyzing proxy data like pine cones, ice cores, or sediment?
Perhaps I just don't know what I'm talking about but that seems a stretch given that the margin of error on any one data source is huge.
It's not that I don't think they can get a general idea of temperature but I don't think they can get it that precise simply by taking hundreds or thousands of samples and averaging. At some level you're assuming how accurate every result is or you're assuming that if all the results are fairly close together that the top of the bell curve is correct.
Lets say you have 10,000 color blind eyes... there's an inherent lack of accuracy that isn't going to be fixed through averaging.
I also am familiar with what happened to the Earth Simulator in Japan. I'm not sure if you've heard this story but the Japanese donated a super computer to crunch climate data.
When they fed the models into the machine, it kept creating extreme feedback loops. The oceans boiled in some of the iterations. They were only able to stabilize the system by using plug variables. That gives me ZERO confidence in the models. Because lets face it, a child could come up with models that looks reasonable if they used plug variables.
I worry about not just climate science but any models based science that has sketchy data. I worry that everyone is playing fantasy games in the computer and making mystical dragons and unicorns to fit their pet theories. Maybe I'm just out of touch. But science didn't get where it is now by saying "trust me"... It got there by saying "let me show you"... Cartoons are not going to cut it. Forget trying to explain it to the majority of people. The majority don't care. If you can make this understood to the top 10 percent then we might be getting somewhere. As it stands, especially with AGW that is not the case. The whole issue broke on ideological grounds and there are as many smart people on both sides of that divide.
Short of that, both sides are going to leverage their considerable political power to pull the parking break and then nothing goes anywhere.
Well, on the bright side it means a bunch of Russian programmers get to pocket some money from clueless Americans and giggle as their efforts have zero impact on the situation.
This has been going on since Napster. The exact protocol or technology isn't the problem. If they kill bittorrent, which is unlikely, how many other competing systems are there in the wings that will fill the gap? I can think of five would be successors to bit torrent that would become a big thing overnight.
The problem isn't the presence of this technology its failing to offer viable video on demand services for your content online at reasonable rates.
Most people were used to not paying anything BEFORE piracy. What did people pay for television? Nothing. You ignored the ads and the tv was free. Even if you had cable which most didn't the cost was fairly nominal for the basic package. And as to DVDs, wake up... blockbuster and the other video rental stores have died. THAT should tell you something.
Accept it. The DVD is dead. Embrace video on demand and understand that you can't charge DVD prices for it.
Hulu was a great idea but you keep starving it. Put ALL your content on it. If you want to keep the brand new stuff off it, fine. But give it everything else and make the service ad supported.
If you can't make that work as a business model then your whole industry is doomed. Make it work.
5. Train a bloodhound to track the scent of your briefcase and keep him as your faithful companion. It helps I find if you fill the case with at least a pound of cocaine. Sniffer dogs can find that stuff in anything. Under water. In coffee cans. Up strange people's anus's... so put about a pound of cocaine in the brief case and your personal bloodhound should be able to find your case just about anywhere. Alternatively, you can put a brick of uranium in it and get a geiger counter. I suggest the only because he's adorable... YES YOU ARE... aren't you adorable?! Huggles!... and cocaine.
4. Hollow out your chest cavity to make a little compartment where you can store your brief case. After all, how many lungs do you really need?
3. Insure the case for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
2. Hire a ninja guardian to shadow your every movement with orders to secure the case and turn anyone that would threaten it into sashimi... it's like sushi only sans rice... and if you're attacked by a tuna... delicious!
1. Back up your work, asshat. Seriously. Get mozy or whatever offsite back up system floats your intercity bus and back it all up. As to credit cards etc, see option 4. As to your ifad and other assorted gadgety bloat... it's all money in the end. Who actually has data on their ifad they care about? I mean, you've got some emails which are also on your gmail account or whatever so it's not a big deal. And everything else is just app bloat that you can download while trying to avoid getting a brain aneurism on the john. As to recovering your underwear, see option 3.
We maintain many symbols that don't make sense in a modern context anymore.
They're symbols. We use them because they mean something. They are as useful as they are easily understood. If due to these modern changes people no longer understand what the symbols mean, THEN they'll be bad. But so long as people know what they mean they're fine.
The objective is communication. That's the point of symbols. Until they're not understood they should remain unchanged. By all means, suggest alternatives and try to use them. But don't act like everyone else is doing the world a disservice by not following along.
On a great many points you seem to be right and I'm not so vain or petty that I won't acknowledge errors on my part or spite someone for their errors especially if they've shown an interest in a real discussion. To do so would be childish and I'm not.
As to my language, I would ask that you be somewhat forgiving. I'm mostly speaking english here. If I use a term, it should be assumed unless otherwise stated that it is english. "Specifically" for example was the english definition and not whatever specialized reinterpretation you were using. It would be unfair for example for me to use legal definitions of your term which while spelled the same way have distinct meaning from standard english and your scientific offshoot language.
As to increasing resolution, I do remember an astronomer talking about increasing the resolution of telescope images by combining many different images into one composite.
The issue is interesting. Exactly how would you do this for example with largely low quality and inconclusively captured climate data? I mean, a weather station in Arizona that had been operating since 1920 for the purposes of local weather prediction is unlikely to be of the same make as another no farther away then new mexico that was built in the 1970s. The differences in equipment, method, maintenance, diligence of staff, location of the station, whether or not the station was moved, there are problems with just assuming that data is any good. There are thousands of such stations throughout the US and most of the records were kept in pen and paper log books.
And while there are "reasonable" (That is the legal definition of reasonable and not the english definition) ways to try and tease out good data from bad, I'm not sure if you can actually do that scientifically and claim the end result is empirical evidence of anything with any great precision (I'm using my understanding of the scientific definition).
What really hurts this situation as well is that it's very hard to get the raw unfiltered data to compare against the filtered data. They keep loosely describing their methodology (my understanding of the scientific term) but you can't falsify (my understanding of the scientific term) their claims because you can't compare the raw with the filtered data.
It's not only laymen that have had a problem with this. Mathematicians and statisticians that are expert in their fields of mathematics and statistics have found major problems with the methods and calculations made by these people.
To then brow beat any laymen that has noticed this controversy is beneath anyone presuming to speak for science or reason.
Please have a civil discussion with me. There is no need to be rude. I am arguing in good faith and I am not stupid. If a person arguing in good faith that is not mentally impaired finds the issue controversial then regardless of your opinion the issue is controversial if only because the situation has become confused.
First and I really can't stress this enough... I'm not in favor of this law. It's clearly absurd.
That said, I hate masks at protests. I can understand that in repressive governments where you're worried about the secret police finding you. But in the west it's at best creepy and at worst facilitates mob behavior. If you have lots of people walking around in masks they think they can get away with anything and that's not the point of free speech or freedom of assembly. By definition, if you're protesting, everyone should see your faces. You want attention? Who are you?
I think the other people that are having the protest inflicted upon them deserve that much.
How many times have we been offered a magic solution to all our problems if we just stuff all our money in the man's bag... an then trust him to spend it wisely and in our interests... while of course keeping our hands over our eyes and not peaking while it sounds suspiciously like he's running away giggling?
We're all out of trust. If you've got a magic solution that will fix all our problems not theoretically but ACTUALLY then we'll give you trillions. For your promises hopeful assertions though? They're not worth anything. Airplanes don't fly on wishes. I don't eat dreams. And good intentions don't make the harvest come in.
This tech sounds promising and we all look forward to results that are useful. The big corporations are just as interested in getting out of the energy trap as anyone. Think the big companies like paying lots of money for over priced and often unreliable energy? They do not. Not all companies are the oil companies. For every company that profits from high energy prices there are a thousand that don't.
But if you want people to switch, you need to deliver the real deal. Lots of businesses have put solar panels on their roofs to show solidarity with the environmental movement or to improve PR. But how many of them have actually cut their net energy expenses by doing so? None of them. Until it is even technically possible to do that, no one is going to make the plunge.
Think of it like the days when everything was horse power and here comes along this guy trying to get everyone to buy steam powered engines.
Do you know what the first steam powered engines looked like? They were pathetic. Hardly any power, very energy inefficient, they broke constantly, and they were very expensive. Where as the horse was a fairly abundant resource. If you've got fodder you can double your herd every year with literally no industrial base what so ever. The skill set required to keep horses happy and keeping the machine working are totally different as well. The conversion from one system to the other is not easy.
Just as we saw in the past, the first people making the leap are wealthy enthusiasts. The first people to own cars were wealthy people that could afford to spend too much on what amounted to a technological toy. Horse drawn carriages remained much more practical for many years. They were cheaper, much more reliable, "fuel" was more widely obtained, and if there were a problem it wasn't hard to find someone in the area that knew how to fix it. Try getting a gallon of gas in the 1880s throughout much of the world. What happens if a tire pops or you need a mechanic? Have fun. And that was the point of those cars. Mostly toys.
But eventually the technology progressed and it out competed the horse. Not because there was a law or everyone said they should rally against the evil horse. It was just naturally out competed. The quality of the cars improved. The prices came down radically. And the infrastructure to handle them was expanded to the point where they became practical.
This is all happening with various types of new technologies but it isn't reasonable to expect this to be instantaneous especially when the prices are often much higher and reliability is a very serious concern.
Even the evil oil companies between mouth fulls of baby flesh (/s) will admit that renewable energy is the future. The future isn't now. Now is now. And now if you want the jet to take off the field you had better top off the tank with jet fuel or you're not going anywhere.
They seem to be saying it's in an asteroid belt... which implies it didn't clear it's orbit? I'm asking not telling... I really have no idea. I'm still shocked pluto lost it's title... mostly because it was named Pluto which in the context of the other planet names is fitting. If we start naming the new planets with a different convention it will be annoying.
Is it really such a great sin for the public to say "show me your work"...
If you take a math exam and simply write out the conclusions you'll get an F even if the answers are all right. They want to see how you got there.
I think it's very reasonable to expect full disclosure. I mean everything. All the data being used in it's raw unfiltered form with full disclosure as to equipment and context. Then methodically walk us through the process of how that was turned into your final conclusions.
Short of that, you're asking me to trust you. I want to trust you.
I really do.
But... I can't. It's nothing personal. I have to know.
You're assuming you can say the pencils are identical as a given. That there are givens makes your example difficult for me to relate to the discussion.
Could you rephrase your argument without assumptions like something being identical. The reality is that you'd have to weight the pencils before that to know if they were identical.
What are the odds that if I took two collections of 10,000 pencils each and weighed them on the same scale that there wouldn't be a some kind of difference?
We're talking real world here. Little things like that crop up all the time and it either doesn't matter or people find ways around it. But starting with a given of perfect precision identical copies is not realistic and whether or not that is relevant to your point it kills the argument. Please rephrase without those sorts of givens.
Slashdot Mirror
This thing is neat and maybe that's the best way to do things. But I thought Boeing was talking about additive manufacturing. I know they have ways of making titanium parts using additive manufacturing. I don't know if they're as strong as forged parts. But once that's cracked this forging process should become obsolete in aerospace. After all, why use solid pieces when you can have pieces articulated down to the level of bone. Fine latices of metal interwoven to build parts that have strength to weight ratios similar to what we see in nature. Sure, metal is stronger then bone. But bone is made out of relatively weak materials. If you build something with the same structure out of metal you could get something very strong and very light.
Still, very neat machine. I wonder if the Chinese have such a thing and it sounded like the Germans might?
It would be interesting to know if these machines are critical to a heavy industry economy.
Again, if you're not going to be reasonable then I see no reason to bother to be reasonable either.
So... lets see... how about you get pepper sprayed in the eyes if you have a mask on? Seems fair... That's the new program. You could of course complain but maybe I wore a mask too... I'll get one of those cool V for vendetta masks... oh man... I'm so cool now...
If you were half as free thinking as you thought you wouldn't mindlessly copy every stupid social and fashion fad. People didn't used to wear these masks all the time. But oh noes... stupid v for vendetta comes out... some idiots show up at a protest with that on because the movie wasn't that old yet... and now every twit that wants to feel provocative puts on that mask or something equally silly.
Take it off and there's no problem. Have your peaceful protest. Put it on and you're not protesting anymore.
Till then, I hope you like the taste of pepper spray... in your eyes. ;-D
Remember remember!
I can't believe you guys rated me down... I was clearly kidding around.
humorless pricks to a man apparently... :-D
It didn't help that the guy made "arrangements" with powerful people to get the way greased. Powerful people have powerful enemies. And by using those powerful people you acquire their enemies.
They would have done better to keep their heads down and avoid involving themselves in political power struggles.
That said, if you need powerful allies simply to get the FCC to give you a f'ing license then that speaks to the inefficiency of the organization.
Well, since you're just going to be rude, I suppose this discussion is over.
Good day, sir.
Apparently LS was right to the extent their machines were not interfering with those frequencies. But older and cheaper GPS devices were not shielded from powerful signals in other frequencies and so it interfered with them.
So, it's not entirely LS fault... it just doesn't matter.
And yet Obama is out there right now telling banks to offer loans to poor people to buy homes and do so at lower interest rates. Never mind that the banks don't want to do that because they think the people are bad credit risks and never mind that the banks would want a high interest rate to cover the risk.
You keep trying to eat your cake and have it too... and then you want seconds and thirds.
Doesn't work that way.
Stop telling the banks to loan money to people that are bad credit risks or you take the risk on your own head.
Period. This is why governments are all bailing the banks out and eating the debt. They pushed the banks to make the loans. The whole thing blew up in their faces. And now it's on the public dime.
Don't want that to happen again? Don't tell banks who to loan money to and how much to loan them and what rates should be charged. Cross the line and you're now in the banking business.
It's either/or.
We're talking about seeing your face in a crowd in a public setting. We are not talking about tapping your private phone calls. That does require a warrant. I know the patriot act bs is trying to erode that but generally that requires a warrant.
Your face however is something I get to see.
If you want to hide your face in public then we have a problem. And if you want to be unreasonable about that, then two can play at that game.
Uncover your face and speak. You have nothing to fear from me unless you cover your face. I will assume ill intentions if you do. Bandits cover their faces. Robbers cover their faces. That will be my assumption. It is not in your interest to give people that impression.
You can either take my word for that or you can find out the hard way.
Don't buy cheap satellite spectrum to re-purpose for terrestrial use unless you've really thought it out.
None of this would have happened if he had bought more expensive but less problematic terrestrial spectrum or bought a patch of spectrum farther away from the GPS band.
His idea doubtless seemed clever at the time. And it was... if he didn't interfere with GPS. He did though even if it was all the fault of the GPS devices.
Food for thought.
Collecting freely available information doesn't require a warrant any more then it requires a warrant to look your name up in a phone book and then write it down in a log.
Anyway, you're responding by being even more irrational. That's fine. Children sometimes do that it never works to plead with them to be sensible.
All I can do is smile at you and ignore you. If you want to have a real discussion on the issue you can be reasonable. If you don't want to be reasonable then I'm not going to make any effort to convince you otherwise. It's like dealing with north korea... you don't invite kim to the white house after he's made a nuclear test. If he wants one of those he can act like a sensible human being for about ten to twenty years.
Till then, you can just be mad about it. Please protest and if you get so angry that you feel the need to plant a bomb or deface property... remember we're watching and we know your name. :-)
As to the fed, no... Fannie and Freddie were on the hook for them. If you didn't back them then it all would have come crashing down on them anyway. All the government did was cut to the chase and absorbed debts they had ultimately underwrote.
As to my friends lying to me. Yes, I take your word over theirs. Not only do you know less then them but you also have no credibility beyond the common courtesy I extend to anyone. I'm afraid no one trusts a random person on the street over a trusted friend who is also a professional expert in the field. No one does that. That you would expect me to do that is frankly odd.
As to your argument that the government did no such thing, they're still doing it.
Evidence?
here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis#Community_Reinvestment_Act
that was just the beginning. That was expended again and again under successive administrations and it encouraged banks to make loans to people that shouldn't have gotten loans.
The only people that don't know this are the ignorant and the self deluded. You might have simply been ignorant. You now know. If you deny it, then you're deluded.
My friends were not wrong or lying to me. They simply knew what they were talking about unlike you. I don't take kindly to people calling my friends liars especially when they're full of crap. So if you feel insulted, understand that you earned it. The anger or offense you might feel is something you should turn upon yourself and not upon me.
As to passing a law about capping student loan fees from the government, I think that's totally reasonable and I think we should do that. Of course, I don't think it will have the result you think it will have. But the end result will make me happy so I don't really care what you think is going to happen.
Six of one... half a dozen of the other. Potato... Pototo.
Having a file on someone isn't a violation of their rights and if you're protesting in front of city hall we have an interest in knowing who was there. Not to harass or intimidate them but simply to keep track of it in case things get ugly.
And they do get ugly sometimes. Sometimes protesters plant bombs. I'm sorry but we need to know.
And this isn't a f'ing third world country where you need to worry about the secret police disappearing you.
Anyway, if you're unwilling to accept any restrictions on masks at protests then I'm unwilling to vote against unreasonable restrictions against masks. So, in this case I'd vote in favor of ten years in jail for it even though I feel that's wildly unreasonable.
I find it unacceptable that masks are allowed at such events. Agree they're not allowed and I'll agree to very reasonable consequences such as a warning followed by a small fine if they don't stop it. But if you're going to be unreasonable then I'm going to be unreasonable.
I've seen throughout my life that if unreasonable people are not given concrete and consistent consequences they tend to continue. So here it is... unreasonable for unreasonable.
Game on.
Again, there seems to be an implication that an average of bad information can be used to determine very accurate and precise information if there is enough of it. That seems specious.
And as to the modeling versus historical records, since scientists mix the two seamlessly when they present their argument to laymen exactly who's fault is it when laymen question both together.
I'm sure I'm making mistakes here but you need to hold the scientists accountable as well because the whole presentation has been badly botched.
First, they have you on camera? So? Only a problem if you do something illegal. Don't take a dump on police cars or expose yourself or break store windows and we don't have a problem.
Second, if people wear masks they're going to feel like they can get away with things. It encourages violence and mob behavior.
Third, you see people wearing masks at protests in third world countries where they worry about a secret police tracking them. This is not a reasonable concern in the first world.
Again, I wouldn't put these people in jail for wearing a mask. I would however pepper spray them in the eye. I really really really don't like masks at protests. You have a freedom of speech and assembly but not one to show up at city hall with a mob of masked crazies and intimidate everyone.
So you're telling me that you believe or it is proven or effective practice to get a tenth of a degree of precision in temperature by analyzing proxy data like pine cones, ice cores, or sediment?
Perhaps I just don't know what I'm talking about but that seems a stretch given that the margin of error on any one data source is huge.
It's not that I don't think they can get a general idea of temperature but I don't think they can get it that precise simply by taking hundreds or thousands of samples and averaging. At some level you're assuming how accurate every result is or you're assuming that if all the results are fairly close together that the top of the bell curve is correct.
Lets say you have 10,000 color blind eyes... there's an inherent lack of accuracy that isn't going to be fixed through averaging.
I also am familiar with what happened to the Earth Simulator in Japan. I'm not sure if you've heard this story but the Japanese donated a super computer to crunch climate data.
When they fed the models into the machine, it kept creating extreme feedback loops. The oceans boiled in some of the iterations. They were only able to stabilize the system by using plug variables. That gives me ZERO confidence in the models. Because lets face it, a child could come up with models that looks reasonable if they used plug variables.
I worry about not just climate science but any models based science that has sketchy data. I worry that everyone is playing fantasy games in the computer and making mystical dragons and unicorns to fit their pet theories. Maybe I'm just out of touch. But science didn't get where it is now by saying "trust me"... It got there by saying "let me show you"... Cartoons are not going to cut it. Forget trying to explain it to the majority of people. The majority don't care. If you can make this understood to the top 10 percent then we might be getting somewhere. As it stands, especially with AGW that is not the case. The whole issue broke on ideological grounds and there are as many smart people on both sides of that divide.
Short of that, both sides are going to leverage their considerable political power to pull the parking break and then nothing goes anywhere.
Well, on the bright side it means a bunch of Russian programmers get to pocket some money from clueless Americans and giggle as their efforts have zero impact on the situation.
This has been going on since Napster. The exact protocol or technology isn't the problem. If they kill bittorrent, which is unlikely, how many other competing systems are there in the wings that will fill the gap? I can think of five would be successors to bit torrent that would become a big thing overnight.
The problem isn't the presence of this technology its failing to offer viable video on demand services for your content online at reasonable rates.
Most people were used to not paying anything BEFORE piracy. What did people pay for television? Nothing. You ignored the ads and the tv was free. Even if you had cable which most didn't the cost was fairly nominal for the basic package. And as to DVDs, wake up... blockbuster and the other video rental stores have died. THAT should tell you something.
Accept it. The DVD is dead. Embrace video on demand and understand that you can't charge DVD prices for it.
Hulu was a great idea but you keep starving it. Put ALL your content on it. If you want to keep the brand new stuff off it, fine. But give it everything else and make the service ad supported.
If you can't make that work as a business model then your whole industry is doomed. Make it work.
5. Train a bloodhound to track the scent of your briefcase and keep him as your faithful companion. It helps I find if you fill the case with at least a pound of cocaine. Sniffer dogs can find that stuff in anything. Under water. In coffee cans. Up strange people's anus's... so put about a pound of cocaine in the brief case and your personal bloodhound should be able to find your case just about anywhere. Alternatively, you can put a brick of uranium in it and get a geiger counter. I suggest the only because he's adorable... YES YOU ARE... aren't you adorable?! Huggles!... and cocaine.
4. Hollow out your chest cavity to make a little compartment where you can store your brief case. After all, how many lungs do you really need?
3. Insure the case for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
2. Hire a ninja guardian to shadow your every movement with orders to secure the case and turn anyone that would threaten it into sashimi... it's like sushi only sans rice... and if you're attacked by a tuna... delicious!
1. Back up your work, asshat. Seriously. Get mozy or whatever offsite back up system floats your intercity bus and back it all up. As to credit cards etc, see option 4. As to your ifad and other assorted gadgety bloat... it's all money in the end. Who actually has data on their ifad they care about? I mean, you've got some emails which are also on your gmail account or whatever so it's not a big deal. And everything else is just app bloat that you can download while trying to avoid getting a brain aneurism on the john. As to recovering your underwear, see option 3.
And cue the music.
We maintain many symbols that don't make sense in a modern context anymore.
They're symbols. We use them because they mean something. They are as useful as they are easily understood. If due to these modern changes people no longer understand what the symbols mean, THEN they'll be bad. But so long as people know what they mean they're fine.
The objective is communication. That's the point of symbols. Until they're not understood they should remain unchanged. By all means, suggest alternatives and try to use them. But don't act like everyone else is doing the world a disservice by not following along.
On a great many points you seem to be right and I'm not so vain or petty that I won't acknowledge errors on my part or spite someone for their errors especially if they've shown an interest in a real discussion. To do so would be childish and I'm not.
As to my language, I would ask that you be somewhat forgiving. I'm mostly speaking english here. If I use a term, it should be assumed unless otherwise stated that it is english. "Specifically" for example was the english definition and not whatever specialized reinterpretation you were using. It would be unfair for example for me to use legal definitions of your term which while spelled the same way have distinct meaning from standard english and your scientific offshoot language.
As to increasing resolution, I do remember an astronomer talking about increasing the resolution of telescope images by combining many different images into one composite.
The issue is interesting. Exactly how would you do this for example with largely low quality and inconclusively captured climate data? I mean, a weather station in Arizona that had been operating since 1920 for the purposes of local weather prediction is unlikely to be of the same make as another no farther away then new mexico that was built in the 1970s. The differences in equipment, method, maintenance, diligence of staff, location of the station, whether or not the station was moved, there are problems with just assuming that data is any good. There are thousands of such stations throughout the US and most of the records were kept in pen and paper log books.
And while there are "reasonable" (That is the legal definition of reasonable and not the english definition) ways to try and tease out good data from bad, I'm not sure if you can actually do that scientifically and claim the end result is empirical evidence of anything with any great precision (I'm using my understanding of the scientific definition).
What really hurts this situation as well is that it's very hard to get the raw unfiltered data to compare against the filtered data. They keep loosely describing their methodology (my understanding of the scientific term) but you can't falsify (my understanding of the scientific term) their claims because you can't compare the raw with the filtered data.
It's not only laymen that have had a problem with this. Mathematicians and statisticians that are expert in their fields of mathematics and statistics have found major problems with the methods and calculations made by these people.
To then brow beat any laymen that has noticed this controversy is beneath anyone presuming to speak for science or reason.
Please have a civil discussion with me. There is no need to be rude. I am arguing in good faith and I am not stupid. If a person arguing in good faith that is not mentally impaired finds the issue controversial then regardless of your opinion the issue is controversial if only because the situation has become confused.
First and I really can't stress this enough... I'm not in favor of this law. It's clearly absurd.
That said, I hate masks at protests. I can understand that in repressive governments where you're worried about the secret police finding you. But in the west it's at best creepy and at worst facilitates mob behavior. If you have lots of people walking around in masks they think they can get away with anything and that's not the point of free speech or freedom of assembly. By definition, if you're protesting, everyone should see your faces. You want attention? Who are you?
I think the other people that are having the protest inflicted upon them deserve that much.
Which would you rather have?
10 percent of 20 billion dollars
or
35 percent of zero dollars
Take your time. This is apparently a deceptively complicated problem because people keep coming to different answers.
The question is basically Cake or Death... and people keep choosing death for some reason.
How many times have we been offered a magic solution to all our problems if we just stuff all our money in the man's bag... an then trust him to spend it wisely and in our interests... while of course keeping our hands over our eyes and not peaking while it sounds suspiciously like he's running away giggling?
We're all out of trust. If you've got a magic solution that will fix all our problems not theoretically but ACTUALLY then we'll give you trillions. For your promises hopeful assertions though? They're not worth anything. Airplanes don't fly on wishes. I don't eat dreams. And good intentions don't make the harvest come in.
This tech sounds promising and we all look forward to results that are useful. The big corporations are just as interested in getting out of the energy trap as anyone. Think the big companies like paying lots of money for over priced and often unreliable energy? They do not. Not all companies are the oil companies. For every company that profits from high energy prices there are a thousand that don't.
But if you want people to switch, you need to deliver the real deal. Lots of businesses have put solar panels on their roofs to show solidarity with the environmental movement or to improve PR. But how many of them have actually cut their net energy expenses by doing so? None of them. Until it is even technically possible to do that, no one is going to make the plunge.
Think of it like the days when everything was horse power and here comes along this guy trying to get everyone to buy steam powered engines.
Do you know what the first steam powered engines looked like? They were pathetic. Hardly any power, very energy inefficient, they broke constantly, and they were very expensive. Where as the horse was a fairly abundant resource. If you've got fodder you can double your herd every year with literally no industrial base what so ever. The skill set required to keep horses happy and keeping the machine working are totally different as well. The conversion from one system to the other is not easy.
Just as we saw in the past, the first people making the leap are wealthy enthusiasts. The first people to own cars were wealthy people that could afford to spend too much on what amounted to a technological toy. Horse drawn carriages remained much more practical for many years. They were cheaper, much more reliable, "fuel" was more widely obtained, and if there were a problem it wasn't hard to find someone in the area that knew how to fix it. Try getting a gallon of gas in the 1880s throughout much of the world. What happens if a tire pops or you need a mechanic? Have fun. And that was the point of those cars. Mostly toys.
But eventually the technology progressed and it out competed the horse. Not because there was a law or everyone said they should rally against the evil horse. It was just naturally out competed. The quality of the cars improved. The prices came down radically. And the infrastructure to handle them was expanded to the point where they became practical.
This is all happening with various types of new technologies but it isn't reasonable to expect this to be instantaneous especially when the prices are often much higher and reliability is a very serious concern.
Even the evil oil companies between mouth fulls of baby flesh (/s) will admit that renewable energy is the future. The future isn't now. Now is now. And now if you want the jet to take off the field you had better top off the tank with jet fuel or you're not going anywhere.
They seem to be saying it's in an asteroid belt... which implies it didn't clear it's orbit? I'm asking not telling... I really have no idea. I'm still shocked pluto lost it's title... mostly because it was named Pluto which in the context of the other planet names is fitting. If we start naming the new planets with a different convention it will be annoying.
Is it really such a great sin for the public to say "show me your work"...
If you take a math exam and simply write out the conclusions you'll get an F even if the answers are all right. They want to see how you got there.
I think it's very reasonable to expect full disclosure. I mean everything. All the data being used in it's raw unfiltered form with full disclosure as to equipment and context. Then methodically walk us through the process of how that was turned into your final conclusions.
Short of that, you're asking me to trust you. I want to trust you.
I really do.
But... I can't. It's nothing personal. I have to know.
You're assuming you can say the pencils are identical as a given. That there are givens makes your example difficult for me to relate to the discussion.
Could you rephrase your argument without assumptions like something being identical. The reality is that you'd have to weight the pencils before that to know if they were identical.
What are the odds that if I took two collections of 10,000 pencils each and weighed them on the same scale that there wouldn't be a some kind of difference?
We're talking real world here. Little things like that crop up all the time and it either doesn't matter or people find ways around it. But starting with a given of perfect precision identical copies is not realistic and whether or not that is relevant to your point it kills the argument. Please rephrase without those sorts of givens.