Let's talk about the current paper: what do you think of the way Mann calculated error bars and uncertainty?
LOL, you mean you are not going to let me get away with being "sceptical of any only recently published paper" while the actual experts in the field boot it around for a year or so; you want me to read beyond the abstract?! I really ought not allow you to draw me here...
To be frank I lack the expertise to form any reasonable opinion (which is why I defer to the orthodox position). My own science degree (and it was a mere BSc) was in Pharmacology & Psych, where papers were altogether an easier beast methodologically to pull apart. Moreover, there's a lot of water under the bridge and my NY resolution finally to learn 'R' and revivify my stats is yet to come to fruition...
Sooooo you'll forgive me if I'm very slow on the uptake here... but unless you are pointing to the fact that there are no error bars on the graphs per se, the uncertainly expressed (in Table 1) is +/- 1 SD. That would be a fairly common measure of uncertainty. You find that inadequate to the task?
Why? Mainly because it most clearly demonstrates the issue.
It's not clear to me, especially in light of the faux pas about CRU, just what issue that is. My intervention, as you will see if you refer to my original post, as well as pointing out that you had the wrong Man(n) (you had Jones) and taking issue with the hyperbolic attack on the statistical failings, such as they were, of the good Professor: was that the original hockey stick paper has long been superseded.
In any case, it is my (limited) understanding of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998, is that it is generally accepted both that better statistical methodology could have been applied; and that the methodology actually used contained identifiable mistakes (however minor they may have been). I believe Dr Mann himself concedes as much. "Really really bad," however, probably tends towards hyperbole.
If he knew what he was doing, then he was actively trying to deceive people, which is far worse.
That's a reading the "hide the decline" [of correlation between tree-ring and other proxy data relating to the sub-set of Russian trees after mid C20th, was that it?] comment might naturally lead someone to form. But really isn't it just the that the blow-tourch of criticism on this particular subject matter renders good-enough methodology not nearly good enough? Scepticism, where it is informed, is a great boon to science.
It's hard to not be an ass towards someone who is willfully ignorant.
Tell me about it!
The only saving grace you can grant Mann here...
Are you still talking about that 20 year old paper or the present one? And if the 1998 paper, then why? Have I defended that paper in this thread? Beyond foregrounding the fact that the work which has superseded it has "more or less" confirmed the original findings? I merely noted that calling Dr Mann "really really bad at statistics" was "perhaps" to overstate matters. (No really, look back at what I've written).
(Off topic, I did hint at the fact that I don't accept the view science can simply ignore data sources which are subject to difficulties of interpretation, which seems a form of the nirvana fallacy). But it being not strictly germane, and this being an old discussion, I'll decline any invitation to go down that line of argument here. Which nicely segues...
The only time, I trust, that I am ever willfully ignorant, is in my refusal to "hear" statements clearly irrelevant to the point under discussion... a perverse outcome of my legal training, you will understand.
The intention of my anecdote, OTOH, was to ask that you try to be sensitive to the fact that those of us already suffering the putative effects on weather of changes to our climate are likely to find an overzealous adherence to the heterodoxy on this topic to be... hmm... unusually my vocabulary fails me.
In other words, they weren't able to establish that their measurements were proxies for temperatures.
Don't be disingenuous. They were not able to make, as you quoted, any "statistically robust" reading based on the both the parcity of data and the fact that the C20th is too shorter a period to make any meaningful statement under their methodology. You know this because, once again, it lies adjacent to the cherry-picked verbiage you misquoted:
Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used.
Sad
What is sad, is someone is so wedded to untruth that they find it necessary to hide the substantive portion of a quote they muster.
"...and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record."
Don't be an ass mate. The unprecedented weather events we are witnessing with improbably regularity are likely the outcome to changes in climate.
Using tree rings to reconstruct historical temperature was demonstrably a mistake at the time, because they don't match thermometers. Mann knew that at the time
That does not go to the assertion that he was "really really bad at statistics." Which is not to say I accept that statement (from memory, and I'm not minded to go to the effort and check, the problem was with a particular sub-sample of tree-ring data).
Well it wasn't one of your more accurate contributions was it? Oooops.
Beside the confusion between Penn State and the University of East Anglia, to say Dr Mann is "really really bad at statistics" is perhaps to overstate the actual criticism leveled at his now infamous 1998 paper. In any case subsequent reconstructions, --and the last word, I presume, goes to Marcott et al. 2013 --more or less confirm the original conclusions of Mann et al.. I'm would assume you (and I genuinely respect your intelligence and erudition phantom) are already aware of that.
it's also worth mentioning that this paper is using computer models
And, invaluable though they may be, we would certainly exercise caution when considering the findings of simulations. In any case, we would naturally be sceptical of any only recently published paper. It's the weight of the extant literature of course, including the examination and perhaps replication by the entire profession of newly published work, that forms the best available science.
I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature (not just uncomfortable but frightened that the vehicle and air-con might give out).
why isn't there more recent material published showing the proven change?
For the same reason physics journals are not filled with recent papers investigating whether falling objects move towards or away from Earth. The human contribution (established not only by the C12/C13 ratios but also by estimates of rates of fossil fuel consumption) is no longer a matter of serious dispute. The argument has moved on to issues of climate sensitivity; just what the actual effect will be on tropical storm formation &c. If you want to see the original work establishing the human fingerprint you would need to look at papers from last century, when this was still a live issue. You are better off going to the most recent IPCC summation of the science (which will link you through to original papers), which in this case would be Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 of the 2015 WG1 report of AR5.
In the meantime that link provided gives a very nice concise summary of one of the lines of evidence by which the human fingerprint was established.
I would think that...
... you would have thanked OP for that informative link. Or were you not the AC who wanted to know how we know about the anthropogenic contribution to observed warming?
... that they actually convinced everyone that it was real
Added to that the all too common cognitive failure which causes people not to look too carefully at the sources of information which confirm their bias.
So what do you propose instead? Keep in mind that blaming the accused (before evidence or judgement is given) is basically as wrong as blaming the accuser. How do you express skepticism or withhold judgement in a way you see as correct?
As you say it's "basically as wrong" to go one way or the other. I already answered this above, but to recap: What I propose is nothing more radical than adhering to the ordinary presumptions a court is required to make, for example, in a criminal process. That is to say that a) the accused is entitled to the (rebuttable) presumption of innocence and b) the accuser(s) (and indeed all witnesses) are entitled to the (rebuttable) presumption of honest testimony. As I wrote above, the process can be thought of as a resolution of the contradiction thus set up.
If there is relevant evidence tending to speak to a client's guilt, one seeks to exclude it on the basis that it is unlawfully obtained; hearsay; tendency or coincidence evidence; &c. Bearing in mind the restrictions due to the credibility rule, one seeks to impugn the reliability or character of the witness; to show the testimony is self-serving; &c. And of course, where possible, to show that the evidence led is demonstrably false. However, the mere fact that evidence that tends to show the guilt of an accused is not a reason to presume that evidence is false (and then have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, its veracity). The point of the presumption of innocence, after all, is that the state lead evidence to rebut it.
Now as private citizens reaching mere opinions, we need not, of course, be anywhere near as punctilious as a court, much less need we work to a criminal standard of proof (my opinions are held on the 'balance of probabilities'). However bearing in mind the proper presumptions as we consider the limited evidence available should stop us jumping to hasty conclusions either than an accused is guilty or an accuser a liar.
What's the right thing to say when one of your friends states that either the accuser or the accused has done Horrible Things?
How about: "You know I really envy your confidence in coming to quick conclusions with very little direct evidence.";) Being the contrary bastard that I am, I often begin arguing the opposite of any position put to me. TBH, I'm a bit self-centred, probably you'd get on better with people if you just go along with the tribal prejudices of your friends.
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
--Prov 15:1
It's amazing how judgemental you can be when you phrase it kindly:)
Yes, I was left with an uneasy feeling that this might be going on here.. but as I said above, I withdraw. Looking at the totality of your contributions I find nothing to persuade me from the presumption;) that you have anything but the best intentions in mind.
Your basic point, if I understand you, is the all too common to rush to blame the victim, even where blame is clothed in the mantle of "scepticism," (e.g. "I'm not saying you're lying, but I won't believe you until you prove you are not lying") is a wrong and we should guard against expressing our doubt in that way. It would certainly be intolerable where the accusations are well founded (which we cannot know until the evidence is examined), and as against OP assertion that "[v}ictim blaming happens far less than false claims," one rather suspects the exact opposite to be the case.
Doesn't it depend more on actually "wait[ing] until the evidence comes out before judging," rather then merely phrasing it so? (Depending on what 'it' is, of course).
If you lead with sympathy, you're good. If you lead with accusations, then you're bad.
A problem, I think, is that too many people assume the presumption of innocence we must extend to an accused, involves a corollary presumption of guilt against the veracity of the accuser. That is not so. Someone making a complaint is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that their accusation is made in good faith, just as the person against whom the complaint is raised is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
The "process" --and this clearly applies to a curial process, but arguably it ought also apply to an investigative one --might be understood as a process of resolving the contradiction, by reference to the available evidence, between the two presumptions reason (or law) requires us to make.
Right, no one likes that. But that's besides that point that someone lies to you and that reveals some inconsistency in your preferences, it seems like a good time to re-evaluate.
Even so aren't you privileging the taste of the stuff above all other considerations? What if my preference was to be a single-malt drinker? If Lagavulin turns out to be blended, the fact that it tastes so good won't assuage the injury, since it is my sense of self not merely my sense of taste has been affronted.;)
"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." -- Abraham Maslow
That's all this guy did.
Which guy? Do you mean Ms Akram?
Once those particles exited the garden, they were for anyone to collect.
Not lawfully, no. And if you are going to behave unlawfully, why wait till they exit the garden? For that matter why not break in and steal all the silver that is there "for anyone to collect" (unlawfully)?
If the couple wanted exclusive use of those light particles
The couple were not here engaged in physics research where the construct "light particles" might productively be applied. I doubt the couple were minded even to consider the physics of the situation, much less did they want exclusive rights to any particular set of light particles. The couple simply wanted to be able to speak with each other in the privacy of their own home. That, I would submit, is their right.
Your misunderstanding is the result of inappropriately applying a model which is simply impertinent to the situation. The question here is: were the registration requirements and the data protection principles of Data Protection Act 1998 adhered to? That is not a question of physics, but of law. The construct 'light particles' can form no part of any answer to that question.
If CCTV cam now records any part of someone's property its autowin in court?
That would seem unlikely. What gave you that idea?
Did someone think to sue State of London for all those cameras around?
Is the City of London operating "all those cameras" in contravention of the Act?
One or two are bound to record someone's property.
And...?
In the event this case rested on the failure of the defendant "in her duties as data controller": in the first instance by her failure to become registered as such; and also in "breach[ing] her duty to comply with the data protection principles" under the Data Protection Act 1998. One suspects however, given the dramatic negative impact of defendant's action on plaintiffs' "use and enjoyment of their own home" that plaintiffs could also have succeeded under nuisance.
What is needed is for cars to be tracked at all times (as self-driving cars will be anyway) and then using either data from the centralised tracking server or via proximity to the phone (or both), the smartphone will direct people where, when and how to cross the road safely. I think too that we need to fine anyone attempting to cross a road using such an underdeveloped and untrustworthy bio-tech such as "eyes,"... some people are just so stupid! Unless, of course, said eyes were augmented via connected glasses...
Um, no! People at these events still have moral standards of varying levels.
Still?
If "booth babes" of either sex were walking around naked and committing sexual acts as your "pornification" attempts to suggest, people would not attend the event.
Well, depending on the particular legal framework in place, they would, one imagines then reach the floor that the criminal law sets in regard to obscene behaviour in non-licensed premises. In any case "pornification" hardly suggests, and certainly didn't attempt to suggest, full nudity or even intercourse. Maybe that's your personal taste in pr0n, but there's more stuff out there than that...
There may be some people who enjoy watching a sex show, but the majority of people would be turned off.
Booth babes are a sex show! (Albeit at the softests margins thereof).
Marketing is all about appealing to the majority.
Not really. It's more about appealing to particular demographics. In fact the more sophisticated marketing gets the more finely honed it is towards that miniscule minority which is prepared to open wallets for the particular product being marketed. But this is beside the point. More pertinently marketing is always limited by rules. This is not really that different.
There's a limit for how much of anything you can add of any attractor before it either becomes cost ineffective...
Which is basically another way of positing the law of diminishing marginal utility. Yes of course that's true. The evidence you present would suggest that marginal utility of booth babes is higher than that of donuts. Of course, the utility of donuts is quickly extinguished since you actually get to consume the donuts (thus satisfying the drive), whereas booth babes arguably don't satisfy, but rather stimulate the drive among their (shrinking) target audience.
Be that as it may, it doesn't deflect the point I was making. These rules create a level playing field where all exhibitors will be able to exhibit their wares without fearing that failing to sex it up might render them uncompetitive. IMHO, that is a GoodThing(tm)... on so many levels.
[Y]ou may see more skin, but only as a purpose for attracting you, and there is no arms (or breasts) race.
Huh? Which one, more skin or not more skin?!!
Look, booth babes do actually exist, and the outfits have become more revealing over time. True, we have already achieved peak-breast, but the arms race has definitely been there. And this as it has become increasingly inappropriate and unnecessary. In any case, as this practice is now being, and will ineluctably be, relegated to the dust-bin of history, this discussion is somewhat moot.
You may not like that fact, but human nature (that fact) does not care how you feel. (Plenty more citations for you to find if you are interested in those pesky things called studies.
It's the very cultural propensities you cite in those studies which recommends the adoption of dress codes at events like these. Given that sex sells, exhibitors will, absent of any rules of restraint, be forced into an arms race of pornofication of IT events. Applying to all exhibitors equally this sets the floor and relieves any of them of the necessity of engaging in the race to the bottom. I very much doubt the personnel at these events which institute dress codes will cease to be attractive, just a bit less slutty.
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?
Let A = 1;
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
A == 1; => F
Really?!
IFwe call a sheep's tail a 'leg,' a sheep has One leg!... Unless, of course, we also call other body part 'legs' (eg. those appendages which hold the sheep off the ground which, outside your conditional, we traditionally call 'legs')
There is no property inherent to an object which binds it to the English language noun by which it is called. The meaning of 'leg,' is given by the calling of objects by that label. Thus if we call X, by the name Y, the name Y refers to X.
Holdem is a game of playing with odds. How you decide to play them is the question.
Annette Obrestad who, at age 19, won the European championship and she never looked at her cards, not for a single hand
Without wanting in any way to diminish her accomplishment, she didn't win WSOP Europe playing blind. She won something like a 180 seat online tournament playing blind. Also she looked at her cards in several all-in situations. It remains, nonetheless, a super-impressive display of positional play. But here's the point, she won playing blind by laying the right odds in the right situations... Understanding what a particular bet size means in any given situation requires an appreciation of the odds involved in that situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's talk about the current paper: what do you think of the way Mann calculated error bars and uncertainty?
LOL, you mean you are not going to let me get away with being "sceptical of any only recently published paper" while the actual experts in the field boot it around for a year or so; you want me to read beyond the abstract?! I really ought not allow you to draw me here ...
To be frank I lack the expertise to form any reasonable opinion (which is why I defer to the orthodox position). My own science degree (and it was a mere BSc) was in Pharmacology & Psych, where papers were altogether an easier beast methodologically to pull apart. Moreover, there's a lot of water under the bridge and my NY resolution finally to learn 'R' and revivify my stats is yet to come to fruition ...
Sooooo you'll forgive me if I'm very slow on the uptake here ... but unless you are pointing to the fact that there are no error bars on the graphs per se, the uncertainly expressed (in Table 1) is +/- 1 SD. That would be a fairly common measure of uncertainty. You find that inadequate to the task?
Why? Mainly because it most clearly demonstrates the issue.
It's not clear to me, especially in light of the faux pas about CRU, just what issue that is. My intervention, as you will see if you refer to my original post, as well as pointing out that you had the wrong Man(n) (you had Jones) and taking issue with the hyperbolic attack on the statistical failings, such as they were, of the good Professor: was that the original hockey stick paper has long been superseded.
In any case, it is my (limited) understanding of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998, is that it is generally accepted both that better statistical methodology could have been applied; and that the methodology actually used contained identifiable mistakes (however minor they may have been). I believe Dr Mann himself concedes as much. "Really really bad," however, probably tends towards hyperbole.
If he knew what he was doing, then he was actively trying to deceive people, which is far worse.
That's a reading the "hide the decline" [of correlation between tree-ring and other proxy data relating to the sub-set of Russian trees after mid C20th, was that it?] comment might naturally lead someone to form. But really isn't it just the that the blow-tourch of criticism on this particular subject matter renders good-enough methodology not nearly good enough? Scepticism, where it is informed, is a great boon to science.
It's hard to not be an ass towards someone who is willfully ignorant.
Tell me about it!
The only saving grace you can grant Mann here ...
Are you still talking about that 20 year old paper or the present one? And if the 1998 paper, then why? Have I defended that paper in this thread? Beyond foregrounding the fact that the work which has superseded it has "more or less" confirmed the original findings? I merely noted that calling Dr Mann "really really bad at statistics" was "perhaps" to overstate matters. (No really, look back at what I've written).
(Off topic, I did hint at the fact that I don't accept the view science can simply ignore data sources which are subject to difficulties of interpretation, which seems a form of the nirvana fallacy). But it being not strictly germane, and this being an old discussion, I'll decline any invitation to go down that line of argument here. Which nicely segues ...
The only time, I trust, that I am ever willfully ignorant, is in my refusal to "hear" statements clearly irrelevant to the point under discussion ... a perverse outcome of my legal training, you will understand.
The intention of my anecdote, OTOH, was to ask that you try to be sensitive to the fact that those of us already suffering the putative effects on weather of changes to our climate are likely to find an overzealous adherence to the heterodoxy on this topic to be ... hmm ... unusually my vocabulary fails me.
In other words, they weren't able to establish that their measurements were proxies for temperatures.
Don't be disingenuous. They were not able to make, as you quoted, any "statistically robust" reading based on the both the parcity of data and the fact that the C20th is too shorter a period to make any meaningful statement under their methodology. You know this because, once again, it lies adjacent to the cherry-picked verbiage you misquoted:
Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used.
Sad
What is sad, is someone is so wedded to untruth that they find it necessary to hide the substantive portion of a quote they muster.
I live in Tasmania and it's not that inhospitable. Rather nice actually.
As nice as Tassie is, it does not contain northern Queensland within its borders.
"...and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record."
[Y]ou don't realize weather is not climate.
Don't be an ass mate. The unprecedented weather events we are witnessing with improbably regularity are likely the outcome to changes in climate.
Using tree rings to reconstruct historical temperature was demonstrably a mistake at the time, because they don't match thermometers. Mann knew that at the time
That does not go to the assertion that he was "really really bad at statistics." Which is not to say I accept that statement (from memory, and I'm not minded to go to the effort and check, the problem was with a particular sub-sample of tree-ring data).
I've been modded down already
Well it wasn't one of your more accurate contributions was it? Oooops.
Beside the confusion between Penn State and the University of East Anglia, to say Dr Mann is "really really bad at statistics" is perhaps to overstate the actual criticism leveled at his now infamous 1998 paper. In any case subsequent reconstructions, --and the last word, I presume, goes to Marcott et al. 2013 --more or less confirm the original conclusions of Mann et al.. I'm would assume you (and I genuinely respect your intelligence and erudition phantom) are already aware of that.
it's also worth mentioning that this paper is using computer models
And, invaluable though they may be, we would certainly exercise caution when considering the findings of simulations. In any case, we would naturally be sceptical of any only recently published paper. It's the weight of the extant literature of course, including the examination and perhaps replication by the entire profession of newly published work, that forms the best available science.
I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature (not just uncomfortable but frightened that the vehicle and air-con might give out).
why isn't there more recent material published showing the proven change?
For the same reason physics journals are not filled with recent papers investigating whether falling objects move towards or away from Earth. The human contribution (established not only by the C12/C13 ratios but also by estimates of rates of fossil fuel consumption) is no longer a matter of serious dispute. The argument has moved on to issues of climate sensitivity; just what the actual effect will be on tropical storm formation &c. If you want to see the original work establishing the human fingerprint you would need to look at papers from last century, when this was still a live issue. You are better off going to the most recent IPCC summation of the science (which will link you through to original papers), which in this case would be Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 of the 2015 WG1 report of AR5.
In the meantime that link provided gives a very nice concise summary of one of the lines of evidence by which the human fingerprint was established.
I would think that ...
... you would have thanked OP for that informative link. Or were you not the AC who wanted to know how we know about the anthropogenic contribution to observed warming?
Added to that the all too common cognitive failure which causes people not to look too carefully at the sources of information which confirm their bias.
This will simply amaze you!
So what do you propose instead? Keep in mind that blaming the accused (before evidence or judgement is given) is basically as wrong as blaming the accuser. How do you express skepticism or withhold judgement in a way you see as correct?
As you say it's "basically as wrong" to go one way or the other. I already answered this above, but to recap: What I propose is nothing more radical than adhering to the ordinary presumptions a court is required to make, for example, in a criminal process. That is to say that a) the accused is entitled to the (rebuttable) presumption of innocence and b) the accuser(s) (and indeed all witnesses) are entitled to the (rebuttable) presumption of honest testimony. As I wrote above, the process can be thought of as a resolution of the contradiction thus set up.
If there is relevant evidence tending to speak to a client's guilt, one seeks to exclude it on the basis that it is unlawfully obtained; hearsay; tendency or coincidence evidence; &c. Bearing in mind the restrictions due to the credibility rule, one seeks to impugn the reliability or character of the witness; to show the testimony is self-serving; &c. And of course, where possible, to show that the evidence led is demonstrably false. However, the mere fact that evidence that tends to show the guilt of an accused is not a reason to presume that evidence is false (and then have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, its veracity). The point of the presumption of innocence, after all, is that the state lead evidence to rebut it.
Now as private citizens reaching mere opinions, we need not, of course, be anywhere near as punctilious as a court, much less need we work to a criminal standard of proof (my opinions are held on the 'balance of probabilities'). However bearing in mind the proper presumptions as we consider the limited evidence available should stop us jumping to hasty conclusions either than an accused is guilty or an accuser a liar.
What's the right thing to say when one of your friends states that either the accuser or the accused has done Horrible Things?
How about: "You know I really envy your confidence in coming to quick conclusions with very little direct evidence." ;) Being the contrary bastard that I am, I often begin arguing the opposite of any position put to me. TBH, I'm a bit self-centred, probably you'd get on better with people if you just go along with the tribal prejudices of your friends.
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. --Prov 15:1
It's amazing how judgemental you can be when you phrase it kindly :)
Yes, I was left with an uneasy feeling that this might be going on here .. but as I said above, I withdraw. Looking at the totality of your contributions I find nothing to persuade me from the presumption ;) that you have anything but the best intentions in mind.
Your basic point, if I understand you, is the all too common to rush to blame the victim, even where blame is clothed in the mantle of "scepticism," (e.g. "I'm not saying you're lying, but I won't believe you until you prove you are not lying") is a wrong and we should guard against expressing our doubt in that way. It would certainly be intolerable where the accusations are well founded (which we cannot know until the evidence is examined), and as against OP assertion that "[v}ictim blaming happens far less than false claims," one rather suspects the exact opposite to be the case.
You're an enigma, phatom. :)
But look, I'll withdraw my second post. You're right. Correct expression is (nearly) as important as working from the correct presumptions.
It depends on how you phrase it.
Doesn't it depend more on actually "wait[ing] until the evidence comes out before judging," rather then merely phrasing it so? (Depending on what 'it' is, of course).
If you lead with sympathy, you're good. If you lead with accusations, then you're bad.
A problem, I think, is that too many people assume the presumption of innocence we must extend to an accused, involves a corollary presumption of guilt against the veracity of the accuser. That is not so. Someone making a complaint is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that their accusation is made in good faith, just as the person against whom the complaint is raised is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
The "process" --and this clearly applies to a curial process, but arguably it ought also apply to an investigative one --might be understood as a process of resolving the contradiction, by reference to the available evidence, between the two presumptions reason (or law) requires us to make.
Right, no one likes that. But that's besides that point that someone lies to you and that reveals some inconsistency in your preferences, it seems like a good time to re-evaluate.
Even so aren't you privileging the taste of the stuff above all other considerations? What if my preference was to be a single-malt drinker? If Lagavulin turns out to be blended, the fact that it tastes so good won't assuage the injury, since it is my sense of self not merely my sense of taste has been affronted. ;)
"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."
-- Abraham Maslow
That's all this guy did.
Which guy? Do you mean Ms Akram?
Once those particles exited the garden, they were for anyone to collect.
Not lawfully, no. And if you are going to behave unlawfully, why wait till they exit the garden? For that matter why not break in and steal all the silver that is there "for anyone to collect" (unlawfully)?
If the couple wanted exclusive use of those light particles
The couple were not here engaged in physics research where the construct "light particles" might productively be applied. I doubt the couple were minded even to consider the physics of the situation, much less did they want exclusive rights to any particular set of light particles. The couple simply wanted to be able to speak with each other in the privacy of their own home. That, I would submit, is their right.
Your misunderstanding is the result of inappropriately applying a model which is simply impertinent to the situation. The question here is: were the registration requirements and the data protection principles of Data Protection Act 1998 adhered to? That is not a question of physics, but of law. The construct 'light particles' can form no part of any answer to that question.
do I understand it right?
You give no indication that you do.
If CCTV cam now records any part of someone's property its autowin in court?
That would seem unlikely. What gave you that idea?
Did someone think to sue State of London for all those cameras around?
Is the City of London operating "all those cameras" in contravention of the Act?
One or two are bound to record someone's property.
And ...?
In the event this case rested on the failure of the defendant "in her duties as data controller": in the first instance by her failure to become registered as such; and also in "breach[ing] her duty to comply with the data protection principles" under the Data Protection Act 1998. One suspects however, given the dramatic negative impact of defendant's action on plaintiffs' "use and enjoyment of their own home" that plaintiffs could also have succeeded under nuisance.
I sooooo hope this is humor ...
It is, but the basic idea is sound ...
What is needed is for cars to be tracked at all times (as self-driving cars will be anyway) and then using either data from the centralised tracking server or via proximity to the phone (or both), the smartphone will direct people where, when and how to cross the road safely. I think too that we need to fine anyone attempting to cross a road using such an underdeveloped and untrustworthy bio-tech such as "eyes," ... some people are just so stupid! Unless, of course, said eyes were augmented via connected glasses ...
Um, no! People at these events still have moral standards of varying levels.
Still?
If "booth babes" of either sex were walking around naked and committing sexual acts as your "pornification" attempts to suggest, people would not attend the event.
Well, depending on the particular legal framework in place, they would, one imagines then reach the floor that the criminal law sets in regard to obscene behaviour in non-licensed premises. In any case "pornification" hardly suggests, and certainly didn't attempt to suggest, full nudity or even intercourse. Maybe that's your personal taste in pr0n, but there's more stuff out there than that ...
There may be some people who enjoy watching a sex show, but the majority of people would be turned off.
Booth babes are a sex show! (Albeit at the softests margins thereof).
Marketing is all about appealing to the majority.
Not really. It's more about appealing to particular demographics. In fact the more sophisticated marketing gets the more finely honed it is towards that miniscule minority which is prepared to open wallets for the particular product being marketed. But this is beside the point. More pertinently marketing is always limited by rules. This is not really that different.
There's a limit for how much of anything you can add of any attractor before it either becomes cost ineffective ...
Which is basically another way of positing the law of diminishing marginal utility. Yes of course that's true. The evidence you present would suggest that marginal utility of booth babes is higher than that of donuts. Of course, the utility of donuts is quickly extinguished since you actually get to consume the donuts (thus satisfying the drive), whereas booth babes arguably don't satisfy, but rather stimulate the drive among their (shrinking) target audience.
Be that as it may, it doesn't deflect the point I was making. These rules create a level playing field where all exhibitors will be able to exhibit their wares without fearing that failing to sex it up might render them uncompetitive. IMHO, that is a GoodThing(tm) ... on so many levels.
[Y]ou may see more skin, but only as a purpose for attracting you, and there is no arms (or breasts) race.
Huh? Which one, more skin or not more skin?!!
Look, booth babes do actually exist, and the outfits have become more revealing over time. True, we have already achieved peak-breast, but the arms race has definitely been there. And this as it has become increasingly inappropriate and unnecessary. In any case, as this practice is now being, and will ineluctably be, relegated to the dust-bin of history, this discussion is somewhat moot.
You may not like that fact, but human nature (that fact) does not care how you feel. (Plenty more citations for you to find if you are interested in those pesky things called studies.
It's the very cultural propensities you cite in those studies which recommends the adoption of dress codes at events like these. Given that sex sells, exhibitors will, absent of any rules of restraint, be forced into an arms race of pornofication of IT events. Applying to all exhibitors equally this sets the floor and relieves any of them of the necessity of engaging in the race to the bottom. I very much doubt the personnel at these events which institute dress codes will cease to be attractive, just a bit less slutty.
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?
Let A = 1;
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
A == 1;
=> F
Really?!
IF we call a sheep's tail a 'leg,' a sheep has One leg! ... Unless, of course, we also call other body part 'legs' (eg. those appendages which hold the sheep off the ground which, outside your conditional, we traditionally call 'legs')
There is no property inherent to an object which binds it to the English language noun by which it is called. The meaning of 'leg,' is given by the calling of objects by that label. Thus if we call X, by the name Y, the name Y refers to X.
In No Limit Hold'em, there are no 'odds.'
Holdem is a game of playing with odds. How you decide to play them is the question.
Annette Obrestad who, at age 19, won the European championship and she never looked at her cards, not for a single hand
Without wanting in any way to diminish her accomplishment, she didn't win WSOP Europe playing blind. She won something like a 180 seat online tournament playing blind. Also she looked at her cards in several all-in situations. It remains, nonetheless, a super-impressive display of positional play. But here's the point, she won playing blind by laying the right odds in the right situations ... Understanding what a particular bet size means in any given situation requires an appreciation of the odds involved in that situation.