Why does Black Isle suggest you use FilePlanet to download their demo? It's a commercial product and they presumably want you to play the demo; surely they can stump up a bit of cash to allow you to download it directly rather than messing about with a fileplanet account.
There is now NO research ongoing for cold fusion, and no one at all believes it
Oh bloody hell, do we have to go through this again? I have to question the quality of science at your institution. Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. I imagine that the minority is smaller in cold fusion research than in climate change research, but in each case I will not go against the view of the majority of experts without good evidence, and neither will I have absolute confidence in them.
As climatological data go, 150 years is almost completely irrelevant. Are you suggesting we only have 150 years of temperature data?
That's my ultimate point. While global warming is logical from a first order interpretation of CO2, it's an incredibly complicated issue and anyone who says that the matter is rock-solid is being ridiculous.
The evidence may not be "rock-solid" but it is very convincing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H persuasive. The temperature rise is clearly real, and it is rising in a rapid manner that has no really plausible explanation other than the obvious one of human CO2 production, which it roughly correlates with. Occam's razor.
So when you compare that to cold-fusion, which *was* thoroughly debunked (at least as claimed), and for which no research is ongoing, is very much a disservice and a tad insulting, I imagine, to those people who have predicted climate models that come out with little to no change.
Well I thought that it was a disservice and a tad insulting to suggest that the reason there was no dissent among climatologists was due to them not getting funding and that they were all biased.
As for cold fusion, it wasn't so much debunked as no evidence found for it (IANAP disclaimer). However I believe there is a certain amount of research going on with it, just like those who investigate non-human sources for global warming - and rightly so (in both cases the majority may be incorrect), but until evidence for either is found it makes sense to work with the evidence found so far, educate kids in line with the current scientific viewpoint, etc. And of course you can never prove that no evidence will be found.
Convinced for the whole deal? We're responsible for *all* of the current increase in temperature, and that this can be extrapolated?
It seems fairly clear that if you release enough CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature is going to rise. The question really is, to what extent does CO2 and other factors increase temperature? We don't know for sure, but the increases look different to rises that have occurred previously in the planet's history. Some of the rise may be due to other factors, but equally the climate may have been undergoing a cooling phase (as seems to be the expected change looking at the long-term record) and the human factor is more pronounced than otherwise thought.
I am a scientist and have the ability to evaluate a piece of research on its own merits, thanks.
That only works if you have the necessary information. If you accept facts without checking them then you can't claim your conclusions are as valid as someone working in the field.
This is slashdot. I publish real papers, I don't have time to perform research to convince someone who goes by the name Pentagram for chrissakes.
So do your papers contain statements with no citations? And then when someone responds pointing this out do you first of all refuse to read their evidence that the statement was false, then refuse to either acknowledge that your statement was wrong or to provide evidence to support it, and finally laugh at their name? Not the kind of behaviour I'd expect in a scientist - come on, you were wrong, admit it. (And what's wrong with 'Pentagram' anyway?)
Really? Where'd you get your PhD? Still working on my thesis... but scientist != PhD.
There is no active research ongoing for any of the above except warming. How'd you work that out?
He freely admits that, while the "best guess" is that humans affect the environment, this is far from conclusively proven.
That is not how I read his (her?) comments. It's not conclusively proven, certainly - very few things are - but but the evidence supports it. It's considerably better than "best guess". And I'm assuming you mean here "affect the climate significantly" because the literal interpretation of what you wrote would be absurd.
Your certainty casts doubt on your objectivity
I am not certain, of course. I'm willing to look at alternate evidence if it exists - but I find the evidence and the consensus of climatologists convincing.
I claimed to be a scientist, not an expert
You claimed to have studied this issue intensely which in my view is claiming some expertise.
you can't determine an answer from a majority-rules consensus
Unless you are either a researcher in the field or have specific evidence that contradicts the majority then you have to accept the expertise of those scientists.
Nice link from what, brighton73.freeserve.co.uk? Is that peer reviewed? No? Thought not.
If you had bothered to read it you would have found that it is a faq that does indeed link to published work. Not that it matters; the burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim. It is up to you to try to find some evidence supporting your statement - which I am calling crap.
Are you a scientist? If not, I likely know more about it than you do. From your post and your references, it's pretty clear you're dogmatic about the issue, you have no knowledge of science or scientific method, and you completely lack objectivity.
I am a scientist. I am not a climatologist, but I seem to know more about the science than you do judging from your volcano comment.
I am certainly not an expert in climatology, but I accept that cold fusion is probably crap, that there is no significant evidence for telepathy, that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, and that human activity is causing significant changes in the climate. In each case, despite a vocal minority, the scientists in the field have reached a strong consensus. In each case I submit to their expertise rather than throwing accusations of cliquiness and bias without evidence. In all branches of science there is the possibility of those of course but I am confident that the scientific process is strong enough to resist them.
And the degree to which you have become offended at a rational post (mine) speaks volumes.
You claimed to be an expert and then made a fundamental error, and you glibly accused people of intellectual dishonesty without any evidence, two of the things that significantly piss me off.
The second effect is the "grant effect." [...] n other words, if you are a climatologist and you don't predict warming, have fun getting funding.
You might also find difficulty finding funding to research cold fusion from your peers if you are a physicist. That does not mean that cold fusion is correct. Please argue on the basis of evidence, not on throwing unsubstantiated allegations of scientific corruption.
Especially when you consider that a single decent volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than man does in a year
If you had indeed "studied this issue intensely", you would have discovered that this is a myth. CO2 released through human activity dwarfs that released through volcanoes (see here for example).
Please, in the future, don't talk bollocks, don't throw baseless accusations, research your claims, and don't claim to be an authority on something you clearly know little about.
There is no absolute definition of a country. The people who live in Wales (like me) consider it both a country and a principality, though the UK can also be considered a country at the same time with no contradiction required. It's just one of those fuzzy things you have to work with. Anyway, what does the Union Jack/Flag have to do with things?
It makes sense to me to go for a technically better layout instead of a simple layout for the user. After all, the user *shouldn't have to know* about the layout.
Are you telling me that if you were designing teh OS from the ground up you'd use this structure? I find that it's a messy, inelegant kludge which is only maintained for backwards compatability.
As for `the user shouldn't have to know', I agree, but with the emphasis on *shouldn't*. In fact, sooner or later, most users find they have to deal with it.
Still, I don't really like the idea of microsoft's logo being stuck on my keyboard. Be nice if some gnu/linux distros had it configured to do something useful by default - I don't like having useless buttons but it doesn't seem worth setting it up to do something just for myself.
you would [have] seen at least one link from a reputable source that argued scientifically with the premise of the conclusion...which is a hell of a long way from saying that the study was fudged, or that the scientists involved are liars, which is what you claimed. And then you whined like a little baby when your post was rightly modded as flamebait. Even if the study is only partially correct the science is clearly going to be plausible or it would not have passed the peer review process and got accepted by Science.
The disagreement I assume you are referring to was constructive and had a logical basis, unlike your vindictive and entirely useless "contribution" to the debate. Is it enjoyable being the turd floating in the gene pool?
Your reply is bollocks because it is a baseless accusation. If you think the study is wrong then tell us why in your uninformed opinion it is wrong rather than attacking the motivation of the researchers.
The paper was published in Science, one of the world's most prestigious journals, so you can be fairly sure the science it is based on is good.
BTW you should have written 'ensure' rather than 'insure' - look up the difference. Also I do not believe that the current treaties specify when hunting may resume.
Also, a high water intake (just as long as you don't start killing off your kidneys) will help to detox you a bit, always nice in cubeville.
You what? What is a "high water intake"? I read that as "more than you need". And what in the name of Satan do you mean by 'detox'? If you mean removing excess salts and so on from your body then you should be fine just drinking when you're thirsty. Drinking to the point where your stomach is bloated to make yourself think you're full of food is not going to improve this. (And soft drinks will hydrate you just as well as water).
Slashdot Mirror
The reporter should have been executed for using the term 'tipple'.
The Word version of this document has now been removed from government websites but copies of it are still available elsewhere on the net.
Here's a copy of the document. Should save anyone else the trouble of googling for it </karmawhore>.
Why does Black Isle suggest you use FilePlanet to download their demo? It's a commercial product and they presumably want you to play the demo; surely they can stump up a bit of cash to allow you to download it directly rather than messing about with a fileplanet account.
BitTorrent isn't easy to use through a firewall.
Well looking at the abstracts for the conference, two of the papers are by Fleischman himself!
You might like to look at:
Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion
lumped with that crap that happened a decade ago
That's not a coincidence.
There is now NO research ongoing for cold fusion, and no one at all believes it
Oh bloody hell, do we have to go through this again? I have to question the quality of science at your institution. Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. I imagine that the minority is smaller in cold fusion research than in climate change research, but in each case I will not go against the view of the majority of experts without good evidence, and neither will I have absolute confidence in them.
As climatological data go, 150 years is almost completely irrelevant. Are you suggesting we only have 150 years of temperature data?
That's my ultimate point. While global warming is logical from a first order interpretation of CO2, it's an incredibly complicated issue and anyone who says that the matter is rock-solid is being ridiculous.
The evidence may not be "rock-solid" but it is very convincing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H persuasive. The temperature rise is clearly real, and it is rising in a rapid manner that has no really plausible explanation other than the obvious one of human CO2 production, which it roughly correlates with. Occam's razor.
So when you compare that to cold-fusion, which *was* thoroughly debunked (at least as claimed), and for which no research is ongoing, is very much a disservice and a tad insulting, I imagine, to those people who have predicted climate models that come out with little to no change.
Well I thought that it was a disservice and a tad insulting to suggest that the reason there was no dissent among climatologists was due to them not getting funding and that they were all biased.
As for cold fusion, it wasn't so much debunked as no evidence found for it (IANAP disclaimer). However I believe there is a certain amount of research going on with it, just like those who investigate non-human sources for global warming - and rightly so (in both cases the majority may be incorrect), but until evidence for either is found it makes sense to work with the evidence found so far, educate kids in line with the current scientific viewpoint, etc. And of course you can never prove that no evidence will be found.
Convinced for the whole deal? We're responsible for *all* of the current increase in temperature, and that this can be extrapolated?
It seems fairly clear that if you release enough CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature is going to rise. The question really is, to what extent does CO2 and other factors increase temperature? We don't know for sure, but the increases look different to rises that have occurred previously in the planet's history. Some of the rise may be due to other factors, but equally the climate may have been undergoing a cooling phase (as seems to be the expected change looking at the long-term record) and the human factor is more pronounced than otherwise thought.
I am a scientist and have the ability to evaluate a piece of research on its own merits, thanks.
That only works if you have the necessary information. If you accept facts without checking them then you can't claim your conclusions are as valid as someone working in the field.
This is slashdot. I publish real papers, I don't have time to perform research to convince someone who goes by the name Pentagram for chrissakes.
So do your papers contain statements with no citations? And then when someone responds pointing this out do you first of all refuse to read their evidence that the statement was false, then refuse to either acknowledge that your statement was wrong or to provide evidence to support it, and finally laugh at their name? Not the kind of behaviour I'd expect in a scientist - come on, you were wrong, admit it. (And what's wrong with 'Pentagram' anyway?)
Really? Where'd you get your PhD?
Still working on my thesis... but scientist != PhD.
There is no active research ongoing for any of the above except warming.
How'd you work that out?
He freely admits that, while the "best guess" is that humans affect the environment, this is far from conclusively proven.
That is not how I read his (her?) comments. It's not conclusively proven, certainly - very few things are - but but the evidence supports it. It's considerably better than "best guess". And I'm assuming you mean here "affect the climate significantly" because the literal interpretation of what you wrote would be absurd.
Your certainty casts doubt on your objectivity
I am not certain, of course. I'm willing to look at alternate evidence if it exists - but I find the evidence and the consensus of climatologists convincing.
I claimed to be a scientist, not an expert
You claimed to have studied this issue intensely which in my view is claiming some expertise.
you can't determine an answer from a majority-rules consensus
Unless you are either a researcher in the field or have specific evidence that contradicts the majority then you have to accept the expertise of those scientists.
Nice link from what, brighton73.freeserve.co.uk? Is that peer reviewed? No? Thought not.
If you had bothered to read it you would have found that it is a faq that does indeed link to published work. Not that it matters; the burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim. It is up to you to try to find some evidence supporting your statement - which I am calling crap.
Are you a scientist? If not, I likely know more about it than you do. From your post and your references, it's pretty clear you're dogmatic about the issue, you have no knowledge of science or scientific method, and you completely lack objectivity.
I am a scientist. I am not a climatologist, but I seem to know more about the science than you do judging from your volcano comment.
I am certainly not an expert in climatology, but I accept that cold fusion is probably crap, that there is no significant evidence for telepathy, that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, and that human activity is causing significant changes in the climate. In each case, despite a vocal minority, the scientists in the field have reached a strong consensus. In each case I submit to their expertise rather than throwing accusations of cliquiness and bias without evidence. In all branches of science there is the possibility of those of course but I am confident that the scientific process is strong enough to resist them.
And the degree to which you have become offended at a rational post (mine) speaks volumes.
You claimed to be an expert and then made a fundamental error, and you glibly accused people of intellectual dishonesty without any evidence, two of the things that significantly piss me off.
The second effect is the "grant effect." [...] n other words, if you are a climatologist and you don't predict warming, have fun getting funding.
You might also find difficulty finding funding to research cold fusion from your peers if you are a physicist. That does not mean that cold fusion is correct. Please argue on the basis of evidence, not on throwing unsubstantiated allegations of scientific corruption.
Especially when you consider that a single decent volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than man does in a year
If you had indeed "studied this issue intensely", you would have discovered that this is a myth. CO2 released through human activity dwarfs that released through volcanoes (see here for example).
Please, in the future, don't talk bollocks, don't throw baseless accusations, research your claims, and don't claim to be an authority on something you clearly know little about.
The problem is that I failed the preliminary test too.
How do you fail the preliminary test? I always assumed that it was a normalisation kind of thing, where they found where your baselines were.
You can also use apt with rpms - and very nice it is too. Works very well.
There is no absolute definition of a country. The people who live in Wales (like me) consider it both a country and a principality, though the UK can also be considered a country at the same time with no contradiction required. It's just one of those fuzzy things you have to work with. Anyway, what does the Union Jack/Flag have to do with things?
Unless it's a hybrid of humans and chimps or something.
It makes sense to me to go for a technically better layout instead of a simple layout for the user. After all, the user *shouldn't have to know* about the layout.
Are you telling me that if you were designing teh OS from the ground up you'd use this structure? I find that it's a messy, inelegant kludge which is only maintained for backwards compatability.
As for `the user shouldn't have to know', I agree, but with the emphasis on *shouldn't*. In fact, sooner or later, most users find they have to deal with it.
I found (don't really use windows much these days) that win-r (run) was the most useful shortcut by far:
win-r cmd -> console
win-r calc -> calculator
win-r (paste web address) -> browser
Still, I don't really like the idea of microsoft's logo being stuck on my keyboard. Be nice if some gnu/linux distros had it configured to do something useful by default - I don't like having useless buttons but it doesn't seem worth setting it up to do something just for myself.
Teletext, a British system that uses spare TV signal bandwidth to transmit pages of textual information
I assumed Teletext was a fairly common system. Do you not have it in the US | $YOUR_COUNTRY ? If not, anyone know why?
Windows TTC: Now with Total Thought Control!!!
You mean "Thought Rights Management".
Heh
Did you miss Greece arresting a bunch of plane spotters for spying last year?
you would [have] seen at least one link from a reputable source that argued scientifically with the premise of the conclusion ...which is a hell of a long way from saying that the study was fudged, or that the scientists involved are liars, which is what you claimed. And then you whined like a little baby when your post was rightly modded as flamebait. Even if the study is only partially correct the science is clearly going to be plausible or it would not have passed the peer review process and got accepted by Science.
The disagreement I assume you are referring to was constructive and had a logical basis, unlike your vindictive and entirely useless "contribution" to the debate. Is it enjoyable being the turd floating in the gene pool?
Your reply is bollocks because it is a baseless accusation. If you think the study is wrong then tell us why in your uninformed opinion it is wrong rather than attacking the motivation of the researchers.
The paper was published in Science, one of the world's most prestigious journals, so you can be fairly sure the science it is based on is good.
BTW you should have written 'ensure' rather than 'insure' - look up the difference. Also I do not believe that the current treaties specify when hunting may resume.
High water intake, OTOH, is a very good idea, and most people don't drink nearly enough. It's something like 2 quarts per day for an adult.
Care to attempt to justify that? Theory behind it? Scientific studies?
Also, a high water intake (just as long as you don't start killing off your kidneys) will help to detox you a bit, always nice in cubeville.
You what? What is a "high water intake"? I read that as "more than you need". And what in the name of Satan do you mean by 'detox'? If you mean removing excess salts and so on from your body then you should be fine just drinking when you're thirsty. Drinking to the point where your stomach is bloated to make yourself think you're full of food is not going to improve this. (And soft drinks will hydrate you just as well as water).
Snopes on the whole 'drink lots of water' thing.
I for one welcome our new SCO overlords.
Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not.
Seems reasonable to me! On the other hand though, I wouldn't buy cocaine from a white flour dealer.
every single other character in the series (no matter how unimportant) will be mean, vicious, cruel bastards
Not true in my opinion. But even the characters that really are bastards have several dimensions.