.. and when you've finished counting, subtract all the scientists who asked for their names to be removed
Please provide a list of scientists who fall into that category. Is it larger than 3? Given there are somewhere around 3000 on the list, do you believe that subtracting these names will leave less than "thousands" of scientists on the list?
due to being misquoted in the summaries and conclusions (written by politicians and influenced by news reports and other media)
The "summary for policy makers" was written for politicians , not by them.
When you have an algorithm, for instance, that produces the 'hockey stick' even when fed random numbers, that is positive proof that the numbers have been cooked - manipulated in order to produce the predetermined outcome.
Yes but we don't have such algorithms do we? Instead we have models such as GISS-E which you can download and run on your *nix box at home.
How many times do these theories need to be debunked before denialist nutjobs give up their crusade against rational science? It's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.
The problem is that people are trying to use climate science to debunk the denialists. That's obviously not the appropriate discipline to consult on such matters. Psychology and psychiatry are.
And yes, it's exactly like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.
We are discussing a scholarly work which has shown Loborg's work to be dishonest. Assuming even that this scholarly work is correct "This is, of course, not evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, but that public critics of ACC feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point."
you didn't read or research Friel's work, you're just assuming it's correct
None of us have, have we? So we necessarily need to work on a (rebuttable) presumption.
You do realize, too, that we actual have HARD PROOF that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research, research that the IPCC relied on for its conclusions... right?
Well I for one don't, and I've been following the issue with some interest. Nothing in the selection of emails stolen from CRU could reasonably said to constitute HARD PROOF.
The much more serious issue of including grey literature (regarding Himalayan glaciers) without the requisite warning in the WG2 report comes closest in my mind. But you cannot mean that by "scientists being dishonest in their research." Nonetheless it should, IMO, prompted the resignation of the chair of that working group at least, after all we should be entitled to rely on the IPCC reports as authoritative and even an occasional slip like that needs to be seriously addressed.
I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition, although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement. The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half. I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured, "Ah, an O'Reilly book!" Big mistake.
That pretty much sums up my feelings towards Lutz' other ORA book Programming Pyhton. However, I have to say I found Learning Python quite serviceable (I learnt python). It had the virtue of being small enough to allow a programmer to pick the basics of the language up in a week, very much like Schwartz and Christiansen's Learning Perl.
It only covered python 1.x though, and with 2.2 the language changed considerably (and much for the better imo). I looked at the 2nd edition and it was not only updated, but also expanded, making it less useful as a quick intro. I note the 4th edition is now 1216 pages up from the 1st editions ca. 350. So I don't imagine that has gotten any better.
Endless bits about immutability, without hints as to why I ought to care
Sorry?! In the 1st ed., mutability is mention about half a dozen times. Not enough imo given it's great gotcha potential. I'm wondering if were talking about the same book?
I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now, but to start with it seems... strange. I was not transitioning to Python from shell programming
Yeah wouldn't it be great it the shell had an interactive prompt?:P
Lambda expressions, entirely too early.
Perhaps.
Not a great deal of attention paid to idiom, which is just about central to learning a new language.
I do have to agree with you there. Especially in a language where the community gets all fussy about what is and what is not "pythonic." Martelli's books do a much better job there.
It is also a good law to invoke whenever you want to arrest someone.
Isn't that what I meant? And note you don't actually have to do anything that isn't protected by the First. You just have to be a member of an organisation (peaceful assembly), and the organisation has to say (freedom of speech), and nothing more than say, "we should have a revolution and get rid the the US Constitution and especially the First Amendment!" Perhaps there's some poetic justice there. Nonetheless, this act is a try on, which should not survive a constitutional challenge.
Want to put a new party into power and replace the old Washington regime? That sounds like overthrowing to me.
Only if you skip the constitutional requirements for putting a new party into power. If you do so with arms rather than votes, then yes. Changes in government following lawful elections very clearly do not amount to an overthrow of the state.
I think this is a joke. I highly doubt a group of people willing to kill themselves by crashing planes into buildings would be disueded by the threat of jail time and a fine.
And that, of course, is the entire point of this legislation. The idea is that "subversives" won't register. That way you get to fine and imprison people for belonging to organisations, all the time pretending that you are not infringing on their rights of speech or assembly.
The judicial arm is effectively separate, but the separation of the executive (administrative) and legislative arms of government isn't necessarily a good idea; look to America for some solid examples why.
I agree.
Perhaps I was being to obtuse. My point was to tell the GP, "You comparing this judgment, which, in theory, is supposed to be about interpreting the law as it is (not as the learned J might wish it to be), the the legislation the government wants to introduce which, again only in theory, reflects a policy we get to vote about."
that may be true, but if the Executive branch of Government don't like what the Judicial branch has done then they will push through new legislation through the legislative branch of Government to overturn it. But it sounds better to allow people to believe we have proper separation of powers.
Dude, what you've just described is the separation of powers! The legislature (representing WeThePeople(tm)) gets to correct the course the law takes (as implemented by judges seeking a quasi-mathematical formal solution to legal problems with which they are presented, "cough, cough"). Needless to say, we in Australia don't have "proper" separation of powers because the administrative and judicial powers are combined.
My point was that comparing a curial decision (this case) to legislation the government has on the table (all of the things listed by GP) is comparing apples to oranges.
This was a hearing in the federal court there is no further avenue of appeal.
The Full Court, the High Court? This was a decision at first instance, appeals are always available.
The only higher body is the high court which is mainly concerned with constitutional law etc which this case has no avenue too.
The High Court does deal with issues of constitutional law, but not exclusively (or even primarily) so. Furthermore the law under consideration arises out of the powers granted to parliament under section 51 (placita xviii & xxix) of the Constitution.
Whether or not this is appealed will depend on an assessment of how solid the judgment is.
One supposes he meant "private citizen" when he said "person".
One is in error. At law a corporation is a 'person.' Indeed the personality of a corporation is a sine qua non of the corporate form (the other being the limited liability of that person). Contrast this with a partnership, which is several persons, or a non-incorporated company, which is a vehicle through with the person(s) who own(s) it operate.
What you call a "private citizen" is conventionally referred to as a 'natural person.'
we still have a proposed Internet Filter, no R18+ rating for video games, and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode.
You missed something else we still have. The separation of the administrative/legislative and the judicial arms of government.
The things that our parents yelled at us to do are both cost effective AND "green". They work. They're proven.
They don't you know. In the absence of an overarching scheme to cap the amount of carbon produced, all you are doing when you switch that light off is lowering the marginal cost of production of Aluminium (for example).
Unfortunately, domain of Australians doesn't have a large intersection with the domain of Slashdotters.
Whether that is unfortunate or not is debatable.
How do you think that initiatives such as Internet Filtering get serious consideration?
Easy one. Rudd has very actively courted the Christian vote which Howard used to ahve in the bag. For the Christian block this is a litmus test issue. I'm not even convinced the government wants this one to pass. A much better outcome surely, would be if the opposition blocked it in the Senate, to obvious political effect. Abbott, who has promised to "oppose everything" seems awake to the danger and has not committed to blocking it (in contradistinction to Turnbull who promised to stop it).
The demographic that politicians (in Australia, anyway) generally target...
Is whatever demographic the pollsters tell them will get them across the line. C'mon! When One Nation was polling 10% and Howard was short by about that much, we got Tampa. Now I am >40, with kids and as good as married, but no one in my demographic agrees with this net filtering proposal (as opposed to net filtering per se). OTOH, having been at Uni with Mr Abbott, hell will freeze over before I vote for him, so I (like you), don't matter. Apparently the Christian block do. That's democracy. As Spike Milligan once observed "the majority get the government they deserve... and so do I."
If I went up for election this year, I probably wouldn't even get 1% of the votes I'd need to win a seat.
Diddums.
I'm not affiliated with a major political party...
And in the absence of laws such as the one we are presently criticising, both major parties would throw a few grand at hiring anonymous astroturfers to assassinate your character all over various online fora. And BTW nemesisrocks, just because you were acquitted from those child molestation charges, don't think we'll vote for you! They wouldn't be able to do this in traditional TV or electronic advertising, of course, as these have to identify who authorised them.
I'm not 40 years old, and I'm not married with children.
Yes but that's not a function of what the major parties are targeting. That's just because you might fall short in the eyes of large number of voters with more life experience than you. And note the 'might,' because our deputy PM is not married, nor does she have any children.
AUGH! Man...normally I'm such a nazi about "its" and "it's"...I feel horribly stupid for screwing that one up.
I feel for you man. The other day, at the end of a long rave attacking some journalist's invitation to be non-thinking passive recipients of entertainment media, I wrote "your" in place of "you're." Ouch!
I've noticed a tendency for many grammar nazi posts to contain at least one typo (if not an outright error). It's probably Eris keeping us on our toes.
It means no such thing. Remember that Queensland is the state where someone was charged (and convicted?) for uploading a video of a Russian circus dad swinging his infant son around. We have no basis for assessing the seriousness of the previous charge from anything written in TFA.
That was my point, you are on safer ground judging the guy by his appearance than you are by what the QLD authorities deem to be "child exploitation material."
Under those circumstances you should only need one offence to get thrown into the slammer.
You have no idea of the circumstances. By your thinking I should be imprisoned because the federal government allowed a domain name they had to drop and yesterday in looking up a linked reference to a government report I was led to a truly vile site, owned by some Russian who collects dropped domain names.
Only those not in possession of the facts can be so quick to judge.
Slashdot Mirror
Please provide a list of scientists who fall into that category. Is it larger than 3? Given there are somewhere around 3000 on the list, do you believe that subtracting these names will leave less than "thousands" of scientists on the list?
due to being misquoted in the summaries and conclusions (written by politicians and influenced by news reports and other media)
The "summary for policy makers" was written for politicians , not by them.
*cititaion [sic] needed otherwise it's just hyperbole
For what, thousands of specialist scientists? Too easy! See Annex II and start counting ...
When you have an algorithm, for instance, that produces the 'hockey stick' even when fed random numbers, that is positive proof that the numbers have been cooked - manipulated in order to produce the predetermined outcome.
Yes but we don't have such algorithms do we? Instead we have models such as GISS-E which you can download and run on your *nix box at home.
How many times do these theories need to be debunked before denialist nutjobs give up their crusade against rational science? It's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.
The problem is that people are trying to use climate science to debunk the denialists. That's obviously not the appropriate discipline to consult on such matters. Psychology and psychiatry are.
And yes, it's exactly like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.
You know Lomborg was dishonest? Based on what?
We are discussing a scholarly work which has shown Loborg's work to be dishonest. Assuming even that this scholarly work is correct "This is, of course, not evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, but that public critics of ACC feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point."
you didn't read or research Friel's work, you're just assuming it's correct
None of us have, have we? So we necessarily need to work on a (rebuttable) presumption.
You do realize, too, that we actual have HARD PROOF that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research, research that the IPCC relied on for its conclusions ... right?
Well I for one don't, and I've been following the issue with some interest. Nothing in the selection of emails stolen from CRU could reasonably said to constitute HARD PROOF.
The much more serious issue of including grey literature (regarding Himalayan glaciers) without the requisite warning in the WG2 report comes closest in my mind. But you cannot mean that by "scientists being dishonest in their research." Nonetheless it should, IMO, prompted the resignation of the chair of that working group at least, after all we should be entitled to rely on the IPCC reports as authoritative and even an occasional slip like that needs to be seriously addressed.
I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition, although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement. The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half. I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured, "Ah, an O'Reilly book!" Big mistake.
That pretty much sums up my feelings towards Lutz' other ORA book Programming Pyhton. However, I have to say I found Learning Python quite serviceable (I learnt python). It had the virtue of being small enough to allow a programmer to pick the basics of the language up in a week, very much like Schwartz and Christiansen's Learning Perl.
It only covered python 1.x though, and with 2.2 the language changed considerably (and much for the better imo). I looked at the 2nd edition and it was not only updated, but also expanded, making it less useful as a quick intro. I note the 4th edition is now 1216 pages up from the 1st editions ca. 350. So I don't imagine that has gotten any better.
Endless bits about immutability, without hints as to why I ought to care
Sorry?! In the 1st ed., mutability is mention about half a dozen times. Not enough imo given it's great gotcha potential. I'm wondering if were talking about the same book?
I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now, but to start with it seems ... strange. I was not transitioning to Python from shell programming
Yeah wouldn't it be great it the shell had an interactive prompt? :P
Lambda expressions, entirely too early.
Perhaps.
Not a great deal of attention paid to idiom, which is just about central to learning a new language.
I do have to agree with you there. Especially in a language where the community gets all fussy about what is and what is not "pythonic." Martelli's books do a much better job there.
A python appears on a previous O'Reilly book, "Python in a Nutshell"
If memory serves me correctly Learning Python was out in the 1st edition for some years before the Nutshell book was written.
It is also a good law to invoke whenever you want to arrest someone.
Isn't that what I meant? And note you don't actually have to do anything that isn't protected by the First. You just have to be a member of an organisation (peaceful assembly), and the organisation has to say (freedom of speech), and nothing more than say, "we should have a revolution and get rid the the US Constitution and especially the First Amendment!" Perhaps there's some poetic justice there. Nonetheless, this act is a try on, which should not survive a constitutional challenge.
Want to put a new party into power and replace the old Washington regime? That sounds like overthrowing to me.
Only if you skip the constitutional requirements for putting a new party into power. If you do so with arms rather than votes, then yes. Changes in government following lawful elections very clearly do not amount to an overthrow of the state.
I think this is a joke. I highly doubt a group of people willing to kill themselves by crashing planes into buildings would be disueded by the threat of jail time and a fine.
And that, of course, is the entire point of this legislation. The idea is that "subversives" won't register. That way you get to fine and imprison people for belonging to organisations, all the time pretending that you are not infringing on their rights of speech or assembly.
Cute.
can you demonstrate that what you said actually applies to Australia?
Sure. Just look at the name of the present case Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limitedi , for instance.
I'm assuming you realise that in Australian law, and action in rem is available only in admiralty, yes?
"The splinter in your eye is the best magnifying glass." -- TW Adorno
The judicial arm is effectively separate, but the separation of the executive (administrative) and legislative arms of government isn't necessarily a good idea; look to America for some solid examples why.
I agree.
Perhaps I was being to obtuse. My point was to tell the GP, "You comparing this judgment, which, in theory, is supposed to be about interpreting the law as it is (not as the learned J might wish it to be), the the legislation the government wants to introduce which, again only in theory, reflects a policy we get to vote about."
Needless to say, we in Australia don't have "proper" separation of powers because the administrative and judicial powers are combined.
I beg your pardon. The administrative and legislative powers are combined!
that may be true, but if the Executive branch of Government don't like what the Judicial branch has done then they will push through new legislation through the legislative branch of Government to overturn it. But it sounds better to allow people to believe we have proper separation of powers.
Dude, what you've just described is the separation of powers! The legislature (representing WeThePeople(tm)) gets to correct the course the law takes (as implemented by judges seeking a quasi-mathematical formal solution to legal problems with which they are presented, "cough, cough"). Needless to say, we in Australia don't have "proper" separation of powers because the administrative and judicial powers are combined.
My point was that comparing a curial decision (this case) to legislation the government has on the table (all of the things listed by GP) is comparing apples to oranges.
This was a hearing in the federal court there is no further avenue of appeal.
The Full Court, the High Court? This was a decision at first instance, appeals are always available.
The only higher body is the high court which is mainly concerned with constitutional law etc which this case has no avenue too.
The High Court does deal with issues of constitutional law, but not exclusively (or even primarily) so. Furthermore the law under consideration arises out of the powers granted to parliament under section 51 (placita xviii & xxix) of the Constitution.
Whether or not this is appealed will depend on an assessment of how solid the judgment is.
One supposes he meant "private citizen" when he said "person".
One is in error. At law a corporation is a 'person.' Indeed the personality of a corporation is a sine qua non of the corporate form (the other being the limited liability of that person). Contrast this with a partnership, which is several persons, or a non-incorporated company, which is a vehicle through with the person(s) who own(s) it operate.
What you call a "private citizen" is conventionally referred to as a 'natural person.'
we still have a proposed Internet Filter, no R18+ rating for video games, and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode.
You missed something else we still have. The separation of the administrative/legislative and the judicial arms of government.
The things that our parents yelled at us to do are both cost effective AND "green". They work. They're proven.
They don't you know. In the absence of an overarching scheme to cap the amount of carbon produced, all you are doing when you switch that light off is lowering the marginal cost of production of Aluminium (for example).
I'm sorry NYT, but you are wrong yet again. Having a bunch of gamers does not mean you have a bunch of hackers.
It's not the NYT who make that claim in the TFA. Read the text you quoted again, carefully.
Who knew they had 'for-profit' hackers in a communist country?
Communist country? This is the PRC we are talking about. Oh right, I get it, you took the name of the ruling party literally, OK.
Unfortunately, domain of Australians doesn't have a large intersection with the domain of Slashdotters.
Whether that is unfortunate or not is debatable.
How do you think that initiatives such as Internet Filtering get serious consideration?
Easy one. Rudd has very actively courted the Christian vote which Howard used to ahve in the bag. For the Christian block this is a litmus test issue. I'm not even convinced the government wants this one to pass. A much better outcome surely, would be if the opposition blocked it in the Senate, to obvious political effect. Abbott, who has promised to "oppose everything" seems awake to the danger and has not committed to blocking it (in contradistinction to Turnbull who promised to stop it).
The demographic that politicians (in Australia, anyway) generally target ...
Is whatever demographic the pollsters tell them will get them across the line. C'mon! When One Nation was polling 10% and Howard was short by about that much, we got Tampa. Now I am >40, with kids and as good as married, but no one in my demographic agrees with this net filtering proposal (as opposed to net filtering per se). OTOH, having been at Uni with Mr Abbott, hell will freeze over before I vote for him, so I (like you), don't matter. Apparently the Christian block do. That's democracy. As Spike Milligan once observed "the majority get the government they deserve ... and so do I."
If I went up for election this year, I probably wouldn't even get 1% of the votes I'd need to win a seat.
Diddums.
I'm not affiliated with a major political party ...
And in the absence of laws such as the one we are presently criticising, both major parties would throw a few grand at hiring anonymous astroturfers to assassinate your character all over various online fora. And BTW nemesisrocks, just because you were acquitted from those child molestation charges, don't think we'll vote for you! They wouldn't be able to do this in traditional TV or electronic advertising, of course, as these have to identify who authorised them.
I'm not 40 years old, and I'm not married with children.
Yes but that's not a function of what the major parties are targeting. That's just because you might fall short in the eyes of large number of voters with more life experience than you. And note the 'might,' because our deputy PM is not married, nor does she have any children.
Since when is Australia in the West?
1 January 1901.
AUGH! Man...normally I'm such a nazi about "its" and "it's"...I feel horribly stupid for screwing that one up.
I feel for you man. The other day, at the end of a long rave attacking some journalist's invitation to be non-thinking passive recipients of entertainment media, I wrote "your" in place of "you're." Ouch!
I've noticed a tendency for many grammar nazi posts to contain at least one typo (if not an outright error). It's probably Eris keeping us on our toes.
with that kind of spin the trip to the moon sounds downright evil.
Compared to fighting it out throughout the developing world (as they both did), the Russian v US race to the moon was anything but evil.
It mentions the first offence was of actual kids
Involved pictures of actual kids, yes it does.
That means it was real kiddie porn.
It means no such thing. Remember that Queensland is the state where someone was charged (and convicted?) for uploading a video of a Russian circus dad swinging his infant son around. We have no basis for assessing the seriousness of the previous charge from anything written in TFA.
That was my point, you are on safer ground judging the guy by his appearance than you are by what the QLD authorities deem to be "child exploitation material."
Under those circumstances you should only need one offence to get thrown into the slammer.
You have no idea of the circumstances. By your thinking I should be imprisoned because the federal government allowed a domain name they had to drop and yesterday in looking up a linked reference to a government report I was led to a truly vile site, owned by some Russian who collects dropped domain names.
Only those not in possession of the facts can be so quick to judge.
How the hell was he let off the hook the first time?
Maybe because it was a first offence?
And how serious was the nature of the "child exploitation material" the first time, given this is also classifed as such?
OTOH wanting to throw the book (or something even heavier) at him for looking like that I can understand!