And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said,
"AND a classic Nintendo to play it on"
And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.
Oddly enough all those tools have legitimate uses -- even uses that Authority would consider legitimate. How are people going to water their gardens without a rubber hose?
McCain's message varies with his audience, like other politicians. But to a greater degree than most, IMO -- often he sounds just like a Democrat. He's like a Democrat who opposes civil rights, or a Republican for higher taxes and more government regulation.
the only way to bust assholes that make these claims is not to play the game, and demand THEY prove their statement. putting the work back on them usually shines the spot light of science and truth on them, and they run away.
No, then they say "The evil drug/medical device companies have the money and resources, they should do the proving". Or they screech "precautionary principle, precautionary principle", thus nicely demonstrating the invalidity of that "principle".
Brain maturation doesn't stop you're senile or dead. Those infantalizing teens have seized upon studies showing that the brain is still changing after 20 to support their agenda, but if you look more carefully there's a lot of dodgy reasoning in there.
As for auto insurance companies, they raised the "pond scum" age to _30_ a while back for unmarried males.
There's also an implicit and, I think, erroneous judgement in your claim that younger people don't understand risks. While they certainly _take_ more risks, this does not mean they understand them less well. Conservatism is not synonymous with wisdom or maturity.
My point wasn't that benzene is benign (it isn't), merely that none of the "scary" list of uses and places found for benzene were good reasons to believe it wasn't benign.
Are you seriously suggesting that substituting a non-caloric substance for a high-calorie substance in one's diet, without changing the diet otherwise, will not result in lower average weight?
"What is benzene?
Some industries use benzene to make other chemicals which are used to make plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers. Benzene is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Natural sources of benzene include volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke."
This doesn't sound like something I would want to ingest.
That should have no bearing on whether or not you want to ingest it. It might as well have been taken from the anti-DHMO page; you could substitute "water" for "benzene" and it would be just as true.
Assuming for the sake of argument that patents shouldn't be completely eliminated, it seems fair that a patent on a novel and non-obvious product intended to dry paint stops people from using the same technology to cook meat.
What's not fair is if in Year 16 of the patent, the original inventor (or someone else) goes and patents the very same product, only now in the field of using it to cook meat. Call it an "on the patio" patent...
I think you're right. It sure looks like they took a whole bunch of work which had already been done, suggested a particular class of alloys (not a particular alloy, but entire classes, with wide ranges suggested for the proportions), and patented that. Looks like one of those "patenting the foam" patents.
Translation of the judge's remarks: "You're a kid, I'm an authority figure. You mocked a fellow authority figure, so I'm coming down on you".
Since he didn't make the video, didn't post the video, and wasn't featured in the video, it's impossible to logically conclude that the punishment was for anything but linking to the video.
Hmm. They suspended a student for 40 days for disrupting class, in an incident that wasn't even noticed by anyone in authority until it was posted on YouTube and later reported on the news. But that's not all. The kicker? The suspended student wasn't even there!
Suspension? Detention? Expulsion? Yeah, maybe for the administrators involved. For the student? Nada.
The judge, of course, accepted the school district's sophistry and let the suspension stand.
In the United States, there's something called the Trademark Anti-dilution Act, which is sort of a winner-take-all rule for trademarks. It says that if you have a "famous" mark, you can shut down competing users regardles of whether or not they are in the same field. So it's not always true that a trademark is only valid within an industry.
The anti-dilution act is evil and should be repealed in its entirety, but that ain't gonna happen. It has been watered down somewhat by the courts.
"Modern" in terms of firearm ammo pretty much just means it's cartridge ammo with some form of smokeless powder as propellant. Another possible meaning would be "in common use today", but that still includes the lowly.25 ACP. Booth used a rather low-powered weapon for his day, for the same reason he'd use one today -- size and weight. I haven't seen anything which said the bullet actually penetrated his skull (though it did crack his eye socket); he was shot in the back of the head, so it may have gone in under the skull.
Nowhere in the linked article (which I had checked out already) does it address the contention that Mann's model, when fed random data, would produce a hockey stick. They mentioned other objections from McIntyre and McKitrick, but not that one. That one they ignored completely, probably because there's no way to handwave around it. If the technique produces hockey sticks from random data, the fact that it produces hockey sticks from real data too is without significance.
To test the power of Mann's data-mining algorithm we ran an experiment in which we developed sequences of random numbers tuned to have the same autocorrelation pattern as the NOAMER tree ring data. In an autocorrelated process a random shock takes a few periods to drift back to the mean. Initially we used a simple first-order autocorrelation model, but later we implemented a more sophisticated ARFIMA12 routine that more accurately represents the entire autocorrelation function associated with tree ring data. In statistics these kinds of models are called "red noise." The key point was that the ARFIMA data is trendless random noise, simulating the data you'd get from trees in a climate that is only subject to random fluctuations with no warming trend.
In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time. The reason is that in some of the red noise series there is a "pseudo-trend" at the end, where a random shock causes the data to drift upwards, and before it can decay back to the mean the series comes to an end. The Mann algorithm efficiently looks for those kinds of series and flags them for maximum weighting. It concludes that a hockey stick is the dominant pattern even in pure noise.
-- McKitrick, Ross, "What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About", April 4, 2004
If by "debunked" you mean "ignored entirely", you're right. Unfortunately that's not what "debunked" means. Listing something as a "myth" doesn't make it so, particuarly not when one of the arguments for that thing -- the random data argument -- is completely unaddressed.
You scored a Funny but should have really gotten an Insightful.
As far as I'm concerned, the hockey stick is a litmus test. Anyone who defends the validity of the hockey stick -- shown to be based on a methodology which will produce a hockey stick when fed random data -- is definitely into advocacy, not information.
When the little guy (or gal) gets ripped off, it's called stealing; but when a large company gets ripped off, it's called sharing.
You must have a different Attorney General. In the country I live in, when the large company gets ripped off, it's called stealing. When the little guy gets ripped off, it's called business.
Slashdot Mirror
"Whatcha in for, kid"
"Selling _Duck Hunt_ to a 17 year old".
And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said,
"AND a classic Nintendo to play it on"
And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.
- hexdump
- objdump (especially with the -d option)
- gdb
- gas
- gcc
- emacs (or vi or even ex)
- dd
- ps
- Rubber hose (for defeating strong crypto)
Oddly enough all those tools have legitimate uses -- even uses that Authority would consider legitimate. How are people going to water their gardens without a rubber hose?McCain's message varies with his audience, like other politicians. But to a greater degree than most, IMO -- often he sounds just like a Democrat. He's like a Democrat who opposes civil rights, or a Republican for higher taxes and more government regulation.
If the Slashdot reviews are convincing you NOT to buy the crappy, non-searchable dead-tree products featured, they're valuable as well.
It sounds like this book could be included within its own subject matter.
Wouldn't have worked with Enron, but how about Worldcom?
Brain maturation doesn't stop you're senile or dead. Those infantalizing teens have seized upon studies showing that the brain is still changing after 20 to support their agenda, but if you look more carefully there's a lot of dodgy reasoning in there.
As for auto insurance companies, they raised the "pond scum" age to _30_ a while back for unmarried males.
There's also an implicit and, I think, erroneous judgement in your claim that younger people don't understand risks. While they certainly _take_ more risks, this does not mean they understand them less well. Conservatism is not synonymous with wisdom or maturity.
My point wasn't that benzene is benign (it isn't), merely that none of the "scary" list of uses and places found for benzene were good reasons to believe it wasn't benign.
Are you seriously suggesting that substituting a non-caloric substance for a high-calorie substance in one's diet, without changing the diet otherwise, will not result in lower average weight?
That should have no bearing on whether or not you want to ingest it. It might as well have been taken from the anti-DHMO page; you could substitute "water" for "benzene" and it would be just as true.
Assuming for the sake of argument that patents shouldn't be completely eliminated, it seems fair that a patent on a novel and non-obvious product intended to dry paint stops people from using the same technology to cook meat. What's not fair is if in Year 16 of the patent, the original inventor (or someone else) goes and patents the very same product, only now in the field of using it to cook meat. Call it an "on the patio" patent...
In Denmark, they call that pastry "weinerbrot".
It's an automated camera system. There's no creative input. Thus, no copyright.
I think you're right. It sure looks like they took a whole bunch of work which had already been done, suggested a particular class of alloys (not a particular alloy, but entire classes, with wide ranges suggested for the proportions), and patented that. Looks like one of those "patenting the foam" patents.
Translation of the judge's remarks: "You're a kid, I'm an authority figure. You mocked a fellow authority figure, so I'm coming down on you".
Since he didn't make the video, didn't post the video, and wasn't featured in the video, it's impossible to logically conclude that the punishment was for anything but linking to the video.
Hmm. They suspended a student for 40 days for disrupting class, in an incident that wasn't even noticed by anyone in authority until it was posted on YouTube and later reported on the news. But that's not all. The kicker? The suspended student wasn't even there!
d ge23.html
Suspension? Detention? Expulsion? Yeah, maybe for the administrators involved. For the student? Nada.
The judge, of course, accepted the school district's sophistry and let the suspension stand.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/316793_kentri
In the United States, there's something called the Trademark Anti-dilution Act, which is sort of a winner-take-all rule for trademarks. It says that if you have a "famous" mark, you can shut down competing users regardles of whether or not they are in the same field. So it's not always true that a trademark is only valid within an industry.
The anti-dilution act is evil and should be repealed in its entirety, but that ain't gonna happen. It has been watered down somewhat by the courts.
"Modern" in terms of firearm ammo pretty much just means it's cartridge ammo with some form of smokeless powder as propellant. Another possible meaning would be "in common use today", but that still includes the lowly .25 ACP. Booth used a rather low-powered weapon for his day, for the same reason he'd use one today -- size and weight. I haven't seen anything which said the bullet actually penetrated his skull (though it did crack his eye socket); he was shot in the back of the head, so it may have gone in under the skull.
I don't know that a modern small pistol firing .25ACP would be any less potent than the weapon Booth used, a .44 derringer.
Nowhere in the linked article (which I had checked out already) does it address the contention that Mann's model, when fed random data, would produce a hockey stick. They mentioned other objections from McIntyre and McKitrick, but not that one. That one they ignored completely, probably because there's no way to handwave around it. If the technique produces hockey sticks from random data, the fact that it produces hockey sticks from real data too is without significance.
If by "debunked" you mean "ignored entirely", you're right. Unfortunately that's not what "debunked" means. Listing something as a "myth" doesn't make it so, particuarly not when one of the arguments for that thing -- the random data argument -- is completely unaddressed.
You scored a Funny but should have really gotten an Insightful.
As far as I'm concerned, the hockey stick is a litmus test. Anyone who defends the validity of the hockey stick -- shown to be based on a methodology which will produce a hockey stick when fed random data -- is definitely into advocacy, not information.