I'm not Anthony Watts' mother, so I couldn't tell you anything about his work. I'm pointing out that GISTEMP has unexplained modifications that exaggerate the observed warming. I.e. Hansen, Jones and Mann do poor work and fabricate results.
Please provide a citation to papers that do the work you describe in your post. Additionally ensure that these papers start with raw data, explain any adjustments they make, and provide their methods so they can be reproduced. Because it's pretty hard to make any argument about the global climate when everyone is working from one of three data sets and each of those data sets have been demonstrated as tampered with.
I don't have a religious position on this, but I sure as fuck don't accept "science" that is actually fiction. Maybe it's my engineering background, but we don't take measurements, make adjustments and them delete the original data and then proceed to deliver based on the made up results without explaining our work.
Except when the result is confirmed by other scientists working independently, utilizing different methods of analysis. Which is the case here.
Working independently? Are you aware that there are only three global temperature records and that the people who maintain them have been shown to collaborate to ensure that the same message is presented? Never heard of the whole "climategate" scandal?
Also, never use the word "proven" when referring to science. It only shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the scientific method works or even what science sets out to do.
Never assume I'm talking about geometric proofs when what is actually being talked about is empirical proof. Such as pointing out that a weather station is positioned in an asphalt parking lot next to a warm air vent. That would be a justification for removing that weather station's data from your record since the data has been damaged. That kind of proof of the justification for a particular type of data manipulation is what I'm talking about.
Your response indicates that you don't know what I'm talking about. A few years ago James Hansen adjusted one of the three temperature records, GISTEMP, reducing the temperature of the first half of the twentieth century and raising the temperature the latter half of the twentieth century. This was to make it look as if the warming during the twentieth century was greater that the data actually showed. If you are going to make changes like that you need to explain it and prove (empirically, not geometrically) that the change is appropriate.
If you can't quantify your noise then you have no data. In other words every adjustment you make has to have a justification that can be proven, otherwise you're fabricating your result. You know, like when you adjust all the data by adding a line with a slope of.01 centered on 1960, the result is total bullshit but sure supports the sky is falling message.
You know that what DNS root you use is your choice, right? No one is forcing you to use the DNS servers you are using.
But also, I'd be interested in seeing the society where "the people" are in control of everything and everyone votes on everything. And I mean everything, from the policies at the local diary to the food preparation at the local grocery store to what television shows are produced and what television shows are watched and when to when you take a shit to who you talk to and what you say. Because otherwise "the people" aren't in control, right?
Btw, did "the people" give you an approval vote on your post?
I don't know if there is significant issues here, but when it comes to comparing quality of life it's not sufficient to just compare incomes or wealth. You have to look at both how much wealth a person has as well as the price of the goods and services that they want to purchase. And if you are making the point that people are better or worse off you'll have to make that comparison as well.
Consider a household that makes $55,000 a year. They may be much further away from the top of the heap than they would have been ten years ago, but they still may have a higher quality of life than they had ten years ago. And unless someone is just in the business of class warfare for the sake of class warfare, e.g. they are a jealous fucking entitlement cunt who thinks that they deserve an unearned standard of living, then it's insufficient to just care about incomes or wealth.
It's particularly a non-issue because wikileaks only moved onto Amazon when their Swedish ISP melted under the ddos. They did not have some long standing business/hosting agreement, Amazon hosted the site for less than a week. Basically wikileaks attracted the ddos and then ran to a completely uninvolved third party to bear the brunt. And then Julian Assange has the gall to cry and bitch and generally act like a victim because not everyone buys into the worldview that Julian Assange is the center of the universe and everything and everyone else is merely supporting characters. Julian needs to man up.
What always impresses me is when third party pen testers are invited into our office, we are told they are coming and to cooperate with them, and then they tell us how easy it was for them to break into our systems. Well, of course, dumb ass we watched you do it. If we hadn't invited you -- escorted you -- in then you would have had a much harder time. When I step away from my computer to chat with the guy in the cubicle four feet away and I see you sit down but don't hassle your ass, it's not because you're invisible. It's because I am instructed to be helpful. If we didn't know who you were, we'd have grabbed you when we first saw you wandering the building. You didn't break in, we let you in so that you could do the job we've contracted you to do and investigate our internal controls. It's no great feat that you are able to put a device in the building, that's why you're here. If you didn't we'd be wondering why the fuck we were giving you money.
Well a lot of people fail to remember that the majority of the Ethernet switches being sold today only send packets to the specific port the endpoint is on, unless its a broadcase/multicast packet.
That's the definition of a switch. So I would hope that the majority of them do that.
Nobody is born with the right not to have their skull smashed in with an axe handle. Your rights of free expression, movement, and association are pretty much only available to you because the rest of us have agreed not to take those rights away. Sort of like how the founders of the united states agreed that congress had the right to create a copyright regime. Copyright was codified before your right to speak freely was. The fact that you want to make some philosophical argument about natural rights is irrelevant to the reality that is the law in the united states.
Everybody keeps saying "crimes," but for only a tiny number of the documents released could you even begin to make the argument that there is some kind of "crime" exposed. The vast majority of the documents do not reflect a crime. Saying that the leader of bumfuckistan is a corrupt bastard in a private communique to your boss isn't a crime. Not saying the same thing in public is also not a crime.
The real problem with wikileaks is that we have no idea what they actually have and what they release.
Ignoring that however, if you look at what they do publish, it seems to me that there is a good case for Julian and co. being narcissistic cowards. They only publish the private information of organizations that won't kill them. Thus we'll never see anything from Russia, China, the Middle East, etc.
I think it's "one rule for Julian Assange and wikileaks, another rule for governments and organizations that don't allow Julian to have sex with them without using a condom, e.g. women, sororities, religions, clubs, and any sports team."
I said "check into free riders before you tell us that no one is harmed." Your entire followup post was full of responses to arguments that I didn't make.
It's not completely and utterly wrong. The fact that some people insist on only considering the duplication costs doesn't change the fact that without the initial development costs there would be nothing to duplicate. If you are part of the supply chain of a software product then it makes sense for you to consider your individual component. But when someone is trying to make a moral/economic argument then you have to consider the end-to-end costs, not just the part that it's easy to glom on to.
I'd just recommend -- before you make another dozen posts setting forth the same arguments and putting words in my mouth -- that you do research on the free rider problem. There is copious amounts of scholarly material on the topic. Once you understand why it's a "problem", then you'll understand my point clearly. However the issue here seems to be that you have no interest in seeing any viewpoint that results in you not getting free shit.
Even if you choose to skip over free riders, there is still a strong case that a pirate getting the benefit of other people's labor without paying is a bad thing. Whether you agree or not, the developed world does have a concept of copyright and it is intended to allow those who can create works to be able to receive a compensation that is acceptable to both the creator and the consumer. If you believe in the rule of law instead of the rule of you having a higher standard of living than you've earned, then piracy is a problem.
Additionally, the scarcity of software isn't artificial. In order for it to be artificial there would need to be a naturally occurring source of software. We'd be able to go out into our back yard and sift through the piles of thumb drives that fell from the trees during the night and find ourselves awash in word processors, spreadsheets, flight simulators, shooters, puzzle games, blockbuster movies, porn, popular music, symphonies, etc. Alas we don't have such luck, we got stuck in a world where it really does take a significant amount of labor and expense to create and support a piece of software. The marginal cost of the n+1th copy of the program is irrelevant. Which actually brings us right back around to the free rider issue. There's always some twat who figures that the other five hundred thousand people who use the software will pay so their one act of piracy doesn't matter. The problem is that a non-trivial number of that five hundred thousand thinks the same thing.
Well, all I have to say is that if this bastard has polled a well-established base of computer experts for advice, then he should at least share what those results were with us here at slashdot.
FYI. There is a big difference between asking advice on the pros and cons of something specific and asking advice on "what's this big red button on the wall?"
Being socially liberal means that you don't give a crap who other people are sleeping with, what they are smoking and other questions of personal morals. It has nothing to do with giving money to poor people or paying for their milk or their health care.
No, it's so to be sure that the guy qualifies for good behavior time. If someone is sentenced to a year and they are a model prisoner they will serve a year. If they are sentenced for a year and a day and are a model prisoner they will serve about ten months. In other words it's about not fucking him.
Do you know the difference between government business and politics? Do you know that government officials are barred from using government services for political activities? So a republican politician writing to another republican politician about a republican activity, such as "veep talking points" not only isn't government business, but they cannot use their official computers/email/networks/telephones for that kind of email.
And I looked through the screen shots in the gawker link and do not see anything that is government business in there, no email's to the governator or anything else.
You should probably get someone to explain to you the difference between the responsibilities of the governor of alaska, the responsibilities of a vice presidential candidate, and the responsibilities of a family member. Also have them help you understand which are government activities, which are political activities and which are private activities. Then have them give you a quick run down on the idea of appropriate use of public equipment and money.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not Anthony Watts' mother, so I couldn't tell you anything about his work. I'm pointing out that GISTEMP has unexplained modifications that exaggerate the observed warming. I.e. Hansen, Jones and Mann do poor work and fabricate results.
Please provide a citation to papers that do the work you describe in your post. Additionally ensure that these papers start with raw data, explain any adjustments they make, and provide their methods so they can be reproduced. Because it's pretty hard to make any argument about the global climate when everyone is working from one of three data sets and each of those data sets have been demonstrated as tampered with.
I don't have a religious position on this, but I sure as fuck don't accept "science" that is actually fiction. Maybe it's my engineering background, but we don't take measurements, make adjustments and them delete the original data and then proceed to deliver based on the made up results without explaining our work.
Working independently? Are you aware that there are only three global temperature records and that the people who maintain them have been shown to collaborate to ensure that the same message is presented? Never heard of the whole "climategate" scandal?
Never assume I'm talking about geometric proofs when what is actually being talked about is empirical proof. Such as pointing out that a weather station is positioned in an asphalt parking lot next to a warm air vent. That would be a justification for removing that weather station's data from your record since the data has been damaged. That kind of proof of the justification for a particular type of data manipulation is what I'm talking about.
Your response indicates that you don't know what I'm talking about. A few years ago James Hansen adjusted one of the three temperature records, GISTEMP, reducing the temperature of the first half of the twentieth century and raising the temperature the latter half of the twentieth century. This was to make it look as if the warming during the twentieth century was greater that the data actually showed. If you are going to make changes like that you need to explain it and prove (empirically, not geometrically) that the change is appropriate.
How much RAM per node? Where do I hook up the infiniband to move the data around?
If you can't quantify your noise then you have no data. In other words every adjustment you make has to have a justification that can be proven, otherwise you're fabricating your result. You know, like when you adjust all the data by adding a line with a slope of .01 centered on 1960, the result is total bullshit but sure supports the sky is falling message.
Maybe it's the other guy's spy satellite and you want to know what their capabilities are?
You know that what DNS root you use is your choice, right? No one is forcing you to use the DNS servers you are using.
But also, I'd be interested in seeing the society where "the people" are in control of everything and everyone votes on everything. And I mean everything, from the policies at the local diary to the food preparation at the local grocery store to what television shows are produced and what television shows are watched and when to when you take a shit to who you talk to and what you say. Because otherwise "the people" aren't in control, right?
Btw, did "the people" give you an approval vote on your post?
I don't know if there is significant issues here, but when it comes to comparing quality of life it's not sufficient to just compare incomes or wealth. You have to look at both how much wealth a person has as well as the price of the goods and services that they want to purchase. And if you are making the point that people are better or worse off you'll have to make that comparison as well.
Consider a household that makes $55,000 a year. They may be much further away from the top of the heap than they would have been ten years ago, but they still may have a higher quality of life than they had ten years ago. And unless someone is just in the business of class warfare for the sake of class warfare, e.g. they are a jealous fucking entitlement cunt who thinks that they deserve an unearned standard of living, then it's insufficient to just care about incomes or wealth.
It's particularly a non-issue because wikileaks only moved onto Amazon when their Swedish ISP melted under the ddos. They did not have some long standing business/hosting agreement, Amazon hosted the site for less than a week. Basically wikileaks attracted the ddos and then ran to a completely uninvolved third party to bear the brunt. And then Julian Assange has the gall to cry and bitch and generally act like a victim because not everyone buys into the worldview that Julian Assange is the center of the universe and everything and everyone else is merely supporting characters. Julian needs to man up.
Really? Have you spoken with Bradly Manning lately?
You're four hundred years too late to be complaining about this usage of that word.
What always impresses me is when third party pen testers are invited into our office, we are told they are coming and to cooperate with them, and then they tell us how easy it was for them to break into our systems. Well, of course, dumb ass we watched you do it. If we hadn't invited you -- escorted you -- in then you would have had a much harder time. When I step away from my computer to chat with the guy in the cubicle four feet away and I see you sit down but don't hassle your ass, it's not because you're invisible. It's because I am instructed to be helpful. If we didn't know who you were, we'd have grabbed you when we first saw you wandering the building. You didn't break in, we let you in so that you could do the job we've contracted you to do and investigate our internal controls. It's no great feat that you are able to put a device in the building, that's why you're here. If you didn't we'd be wondering why the fuck we were giving you money.
That's the definition of a switch. So I would hope that the majority of them do that.
The cactus may not be a deal-breaker, what kind of cactus?
Nobody is born with the right not to have their skull smashed in with an axe handle. Your rights of free expression, movement, and association are pretty much only available to you because the rest of us have agreed not to take those rights away. Sort of like how the founders of the united states agreed that congress had the right to create a copyright regime. Copyright was codified before your right to speak freely was. The fact that you want to make some philosophical argument about natural rights is irrelevant to the reality that is the law in the united states.
Everybody keeps saying "crimes," but for only a tiny number of the documents released could you even begin to make the argument that there is some kind of "crime" exposed. The vast majority of the documents do not reflect a crime. Saying that the leader of bumfuckistan is a corrupt bastard in a private communique to your boss isn't a crime. Not saying the same thing in public is also not a crime.
The real problem with wikileaks is that we have no idea what they actually have and what they release.
Ignoring that however, if you look at what they do publish, it seems to me that there is a good case for Julian and co. being narcissistic cowards. They only publish the private information of organizations that won't kill them. Thus we'll never see anything from Russia, China, the Middle East, etc.
I think it's "one rule for Julian Assange and wikileaks, another rule for governments and organizations that don't allow Julian to have sex with them without using a condom, e.g. women, sororities, religions, clubs, and any sports team."
You've never heard of a pride of lions? Lions are social animals.
I said "check into free riders before you tell us that no one is harmed." Your entire followup post was full of responses to arguments that I didn't make.
It's not completely and utterly wrong. The fact that some people insist on only considering the duplication costs doesn't change the fact that without the initial development costs there would be nothing to duplicate. If you are part of the supply chain of a software product then it makes sense for you to consider your individual component. But when someone is trying to make a moral/economic argument then you have to consider the end-to-end costs, not just the part that it's easy to glom on to.
I'd just recommend -- before you make another dozen posts setting forth the same arguments and putting words in my mouth -- that you do research on the free rider problem. There is copious amounts of scholarly material on the topic. Once you understand why it's a "problem", then you'll understand my point clearly. However the issue here seems to be that you have no interest in seeing any viewpoint that results in you not getting free shit.
Even if you choose to skip over free riders, there is still a strong case that a pirate getting the benefit of other people's labor without paying is a bad thing. Whether you agree or not, the developed world does have a concept of copyright and it is intended to allow those who can create works to be able to receive a compensation that is acceptable to both the creator and the consumer. If you believe in the rule of law instead of the rule of you having a higher standard of living than you've earned, then piracy is a problem.
Additionally, the scarcity of software isn't artificial. In order for it to be artificial there would need to be a naturally occurring source of software. We'd be able to go out into our back yard and sift through the piles of thumb drives that fell from the trees during the night and find ourselves awash in word processors, spreadsheets, flight simulators, shooters, puzzle games, blockbuster movies, porn, popular music, symphonies, etc. Alas we don't have such luck, we got stuck in a world where it really does take a significant amount of labor and expense to create and support a piece of software. The marginal cost of the n+1th copy of the program is irrelevant. Which actually brings us right back around to the free rider issue. There's always some twat who figures that the other five hundred thousand people who use the software will pay so their one act of piracy doesn't matter. The problem is that a non-trivial number of that five hundred thousand thinks the same thing.
Free riders are a problem. Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.
Well, all I have to say is that if this bastard has polled a well-established base of computer experts for advice, then he should at least share what those results were with us here at slashdot.
FYI. There is a big difference between asking advice on the pros and cons of something specific and asking advice on "what's this big red button on the wall?"
Being socially liberal means that you don't give a crap who other people are sleeping with, what they are smoking and other questions of personal morals. It has nothing to do with giving money to poor people or paying for their milk or their health care.
No, it's so to be sure that the guy qualifies for good behavior time. If someone is sentenced to a year and they are a model prisoner they will serve a year. If they are sentenced for a year and a day and are a model prisoner they will serve about ten months. In other words it's about not fucking him.
Do you know the difference between government business and politics? Do you know that government officials are barred from using government services for political activities? So a republican politician writing to another republican politician about a republican activity, such as "veep talking points" not only isn't government business, but they cannot use their official computers/email/networks/telephones for that kind of email.
And I looked through the screen shots in the gawker link and do not see anything that is government business in there, no email's to the governator or anything else.
You should probably get someone to explain to you the difference between the responsibilities of the governor of alaska, the responsibilities of a vice presidential candidate, and the responsibilities of a family member. Also have them help you understand which are government activities, which are political activities and which are private activities. Then have them give you a quick run down on the idea of appropriate use of public equipment and money.