It is not necessary to do research, you just have to look at ALL data to see what they did.
By lopping off the Medieval Warming Period, it made what was a U shaped trough in tempratures into the Hockey Stick.
They cherry picked the data to show what they wanted to show, trying to show just the trough of the Little Ice Age, and the recent warming trend without showing the Medieval Warming Period.
This would suppress the question: Well, if it was nearly warm in the MWP as it is now, how do we know how much is caused by Man and the CO2 generation as is generated by the Industrial Age?
Again, no disputed over the data, just the cherry picking and conclusions
Considering the cherry picked "Hockey stick" incident, I would put down those stones and prove your case first, before trying to break some else's glass house.
The climate man on the TV said we are going to have severe drought today and tomorrow, followed by floods on Wednesday, then an ice age will set in by this weekend.
We continue to produce more oil, and find more deposits to replace the oil we have used.
Will we hit it eventually? Yes But we have been supposedly about to hit it any day now for the last 30 years, and right now it is still significantly distant in the future that it is not coming soon.
As soon as alternative energy gets more mature, and/or oil prices continue to rise because of production costs, oil demand will drop.
We can call it the Steve Jobs defense. "Your honor, the perpetrator has been judged and sentenced by Darwin, for which there is no appeal or higher court."
And, btw, my THESIS statement of the paper was just 2 sentences. There were around 15 to 20 pages of backup and examples/counter examples of art.
The best counter example: The signed urinal called "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp. It is simply a discarded urinal, signed by R. Mutt - 1917.
It is a "piece of art" who's exact cultural relevance according to my two criteria is very difficult to identify.
It is only explainable as art because it was considered shockingly scandalous and poor taste in 1917. Dadaism is the context, and explaining the human condition at the time as to be so out of touch from a basic human function that it was "scandalous" (R. Mutt was a male name used by a female artist, the signature is done by hand, that is the only "making by art" done here) tells us a great deal about the times.
But it does meet the criteria, and thus is art, regardless of it's aesthetics or beauty, or golden ratios, whatever other arbitrary and subjective properties you wish to assign.
You must not know the meaning of the word artifact:
An object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest: e.g. gold and silver artifacts
see the OED.... QED.
And the most influential STEM equations are elegent and have just a few terms but profound implications effects: F=MA, E=MC2, a2 + b2 = c2, i2 = 1, dS >= 0, F - E + V = 2, logXY = logX + logY
One presumes one uses hands in preparing or performing those arts, unless it is multiple amputees performing.
Thus "Made with hands".
You could also point to stage notes, written plays, manuals, etc.
A STEM student I would presume would appreciate the clarity and elegance of reducing art to two actualy "requirements" and not dozens of end user needs like beauty, aesthetics, etc.
I would say they failed to understand the lessons, because as others state elsewhere they found the grades are arbitrary, the subjects are arbitrary... useless.
got news for ya, most PEOPLE are arbitrary. Humanities teaches you to understand and predict the arbitrary behavior and work around it.
In a purely academic or technological discussion, rational thought and logic are the tools we use. However...
You try to apply logic and rational thought when others are reacting emotionally or irrationally, they tend to win.
Demagoguery and appeals to emotion come naturally to most humans, and most humans react to those tactics, so you must know how to counter it. You won't learn that in STEM, you learn it in HUM and in some ways BUS classes. Which is why I went for a Business Information Systems degree, not a straight CIS degree.
If you don't speak the language of the guys that hold the purse strings, you will fail without funding.
Then that is "stutter & brain lock" is a clear failing to empathize and understand other people. An this is an INTJ telling you that... so you have a real issue.
Sales weenies job is to sell the customer. The technical people need to make sure that the solution fits their models. (Which as I have pointed out, are too ridged)
I on the other hand, want to make sure that if we sell the customer Magic Pixie Dust (tm) like they are demanding, that we (IBM, but more specficially the tech people) are protected in the contract language in case it turns out it is not bio-degradable or soy based.
I work for IBM. My peers are generally more intelligent but less resourceful than I am, and less innovative.
They really look to solve a problem once, never looking to solve it again, until the first solution is so totally broken they are forced to do so.
I am on the constant lookout for new possible solutions that are better, or faster, and always cheaper. Why in this day an age we use agents that must be installed and maintained at significant cost instead of agentless probes to get the data we want... no idea, except that it is way "IBM does it".
I also disagree on point 1. Most of the pure CIS students I work with cannot debate or put together a coherent argument why one course of action is better than the other. Mostly it comes down to "I am right, because I say so." Often it comes down to trying to shout people down.
They also almost never take into consideration the business and political aspects. I don't play politics, I am straight forward and forthright and it serves me well. But knowing what the political players are up to, how they likely will try to get their way allows me to end run them before they form an bad technical solution based on politics.
I am often the peacemaker between the political, business/sales, and technical factions in any situation. Defanging the politics, get the sales weenies their sale, and make the tech people understand that there are controls in place to prevent a bad solution from being sold.
Not an easy job, it does fail sometimes... but when it works, it works well.
Everybody walks away happy, except for the political players. Don't care if they like it or not, I am not here to score points.
I learned all that from reading Machiavelli, Ceaser, Cicero, Kissinger and a host of others I don't want to type on how to handle people, and manipulate the manipulators.
I got a "D" on an art paper once. or would have. The subject was declared to be "What is Art?" (i know, I know, but that is what the prof wanted)
Most everyone got into esthetics, beauty, meaning, and such qualities.
I put forth the idea that Art was boiled down to two requirements:
1. It must be an Artifact, literally "made with hands" 2. It must speak to us something about the human condition
That was his initial grade. Then he thought about it. He couldn't reconcile why the idea offended him. So he gave it to his brother to read. His brother was in the CS field. Electrical engineer and architect I think.
"He has it right. He cut all your BS out of it and got it down to two ideals, and he is dead on. You just don't like it."
I got an A+, and he submitted my paper for a publication. (rejected of course, they were probably just as insulted)
Slashdot Mirror
Cherry picking data again.
2005 is 9 years ago. What has happened? We started producing in the oil tar sands and shale and guess what? Huge increase in oil production.
168,837 Thousand barrels a month in Jan 2005,
248,149 Thousand barrels a month in Jan 2005.
The trend is up, my friend, no peak oil in the numbers:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hi...
2005 168,837 154,044 173,522 166,920 173,357 163,254 162,824 161,061 126,343 141,054 145,528 154,455
2006 157,648 140,738 155,790 152,397 159,650 154,796 157,881 156,177 150,902 158,338 151,923 160,793
2007 158,222 143,614 158,480 155,234 161,345 152,168 156,148 154,557 147,074 156,681 151,236 158,362
2008 158,430 149,491 160,948 154,625 159,430 154,091 160,497 155,257 119,394 146,815 152,515 158,404
2009 159,389 146,836 161,726 158,551 166,830 158,266 167,369 166,587 166,834 171,056 161,610 168,964
2010 167,469 155,314 170,888 161,764 167,239 161,089 164,325 168,200 167,656 172,908 166,757 173,179
2011 169,932 150,800 173,686 166,613 174,181 167,599 168,031 175,100 167,835 182,172 180,307 186,881
2012 190,211 180,920 194,978 188,570 196,188 187,260 197,720 195,176 196,860 214,959 211,144 219,321
2013 217,732 199,448 222,043 219,733 225,139 216,507 231,106 231,304 232,664 239,067 238,441 244,972
2014 248,149 224,916
It is not necessary to do research, you just have to look at ALL data to see what they did.
By lopping off the Medieval Warming Period, it made what was a U shaped trough in tempratures into the Hockey Stick.
They cherry picked the data to show what they wanted to show, trying to show just the trough of the Little Ice Age, and the recent warming trend without showing the Medieval Warming Period.
This would suppress the question: Well, if it was nearly warm in the MWP as it is now, how do we know how much is caused by Man and the CO2 generation as is generated by the Industrial Age?
Again, no disputed over the data, just the cherry picking and conclusions
Considering the cherry picked "Hockey stick" incident, I would put down those stones and prove your case first, before trying to break some else's glass house.
The climate man on the TV said we are going to have severe drought today and tomorrow, followed by floods on Wednesday, then an ice age will set in by this weekend.
You don't know what peak oil is.
We continue to produce more oil, and find more deposits to replace the oil we have used.
Will we hit it eventually? Yes
But we have been supposedly about to hit it any day now for the last 30 years, and right now it is still significantly distant in the future that it is not coming soon.
As soon as alternative energy gets more mature, and/or oil prices continue to rise because of production costs, oil demand will drop.
But not because we ran out.
I think you mean changeable lenses?
See if that flys in court.
We can call it the Steve Jobs defense.
"Your honor, the perpetrator has been judged and sentenced by Darwin, for which there is no appeal or higher court."
And, btw, my THESIS statement of the paper was just 2 sentences. There were around 15 to 20 pages of backup and examples/counter examples of art.
The best counter example: The signed urinal called "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp. It is simply a discarded urinal, signed by R. Mutt - 1917.
It is a "piece of art" who's exact cultural relevance according to my two criteria is very difficult to identify.
It is only explainable as art because it was considered shockingly scandalous and poor taste in 1917. Dadaism is the context, and explaining the human condition at the time as to be so out of touch from a basic human function that it was "scandalous" (R. Mutt was a male name used by a female artist, the signature is done by hand, that is the only "making by art" done here) tells us a great deal about the times.
But it does meet the criteria, and thus is art, regardless of it's aesthetics or beauty, or golden ratios, whatever other arbitrary and subjective properties you wish to assign.
You must not know the meaning of the word artifact:
An object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest:
e.g. gold and silver artifacts
see the OED....
QED.
And the most influential STEM equations are elegent and have just a few terms but profound implications effects: F=MA, E=MC2, a2 + b2 = c2, i2 = 1, dS >= 0, F - E + V = 2, logXY = logX + logY
Please engage brain before making comments.
This must have changed since I was at SJSU in the early 90s.
I never heard it expressed that math ignorance was a good thing.
In fact, the only time it came up was when Chem/Phys mocked Bio as "Science for people that can't do math."
Geometry is important to HUM. How do you study Pythagoras, Roman architecture and art, Renaissance architecture and art, without it?
And as the Digital world eclipses the brick and mud world the HUM people better get with the fucking program.
Some of Andy Warhol's early digital work done on an Amiga was nearly lost recently.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/a...
One presumes one uses hands in preparing or performing those arts, unless it is multiple amputees performing.
Thus "Made with hands".
You could also point to stage notes, written plays, manuals, etc.
A STEM student I would presume would appreciate the clarity and elegance of reducing art to two actualy "requirements" and not dozens of end user needs like beauty, aesthetics, etc.
But it is apparently above your head.
I would say they failed to understand the lessons, because as others state elsewhere they found the grades are arbitrary, the subjects are arbitrary... useless.
got news for ya, most PEOPLE are arbitrary. Humanities teaches you to understand and predict the arbitrary behavior and work around it.
In a purely academic or technological discussion, rational thought and logic are the tools we use. However...
You try to apply logic and rational thought when others are reacting emotionally or irrationally, they tend to win.
Demagoguery and appeals to emotion come naturally to most humans, and most humans react to those tactics, so you must know how to counter it.
You won't learn that in STEM, you learn it in HUM and in some ways BUS classes. Which is why I went for a Business Information Systems degree, not a straight CIS degree.
If you don't speak the language of the guys that hold the purse strings, you will fail without funding.
and the cobbler's children are shoeless.
=)
I guess not everyone watches Craig Ferguson.... well, at least the idiot mod wasted a point.
Colored coins are racist.
You are a racist, man!
RAAACIST!
Must be, if he did not see this coming.
Then that is "stutter & brain lock" is a clear failing to empathize and understand other people. An this is an INTJ telling you that... so you have a real issue.
Sales weenies job is to sell the customer. The technical people need to make sure that the solution fits their models. (Which as I have pointed out, are too ridged)
I on the other hand, want to make sure that if we sell the customer Magic Pixie Dust (tm) like they are demanding, that we (IBM, but more specficially the tech people) are protected in the contract language in case it turns out it is not bio-degradable or soy based.
I work for IBM. My peers are generally more intelligent but less resourceful than I am, and less innovative.
They really look to solve a problem once, never looking to solve it again, until the first solution is so totally broken they are forced to do so.
I am on the constant lookout for new possible solutions that are better, or faster, and always cheaper. Why in this day an age we use agents that must be installed and maintained at significant cost instead of agentless probes to get the data we want... no idea, except that it is way "IBM does it".
I also disagree on point 1.
Most of the pure CIS students I work with cannot debate or put together a coherent argument why one course of action is better than the other. Mostly it comes down to "I am right, because I say so." Often it comes down to trying to shout people down.
They also almost never take into consideration the business and political aspects. I don't play politics, I am straight forward and forthright and it serves me well. But knowing what the political players are up to, how they likely will try to get their way allows me to end run them before they form an bad technical solution based on politics.
I am often the peacemaker between the political, business/sales, and technical factions in any situation. Defanging the politics, get the sales weenies their sale, and make the tech people understand that there are controls in place to prevent a bad solution from being sold.
Not an easy job, it does fail sometimes... but when it works, it works well.
Everybody walks away happy, except for the political players. Don't care if they like it or not, I am not here to score points.
I learned all that from reading Machiavelli, Ceaser, Cicero, Kissinger and a host of others I don't want to type on how to handle people, and manipulate the manipulators.
Not from Knuth.
I disagree, I spent more time with reading, research then writing papers, than I ever did in BSIS.
I got a "D" on an art paper once. or would have.
The subject was declared to be "What is Art?" (i know, I know, but that is what the prof wanted)
Most everyone got into esthetics, beauty, meaning, and such qualities.
I put forth the idea that Art was boiled down to two requirements:
1. It must be an Artifact, literally "made with hands"
2. It must speak to us something about the human condition
That was his initial grade. Then he thought about it. He couldn't reconcile why the idea offended him. So he gave it to his brother to read.
His brother was in the CS field. Electrical engineer and architect I think.
"He has it right. He cut all your BS out of it and got it down to two ideals, and he is dead on. You just don't like it."
I got an A+, and he submitted my paper for a publication. (rejected of course, they were probably just as insulted)
Maybe she is open to sperm doners?
Who knows? /creepy
I get the urge to break out into "O What a Piece of Work is Man!" during meetings.
Especially when suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune.
Maybe you are right, maybe it was P-Chem. Give an old man a break, it was 22 years ago.
But I get embarrassed when I do it.. STUPID! STUPID STUPID!