With an algorithm like this, available to individuals, they (this new startup) could have made the assessment of whether I was likely to win the case, and funded it if so.
You've already consulted several professional lawyers on the matter. Why would the algorithm be any different? The only thing I see that could be relevant is that the business might be able to tap into commercial financial records or spending patterns of your relative and determine at the least that they had a sudden surge of wealth or spending about the time of the supposed appropriation.
I notice you have yet to dispute any of my claims with facts.
So many rightwing lies, so many facts
"Lie" and "fact" means things. We don't actually have evidence that Steven Goddard is lying. Remember lying is not just saying a falsehood, but saying it while believing it is a falsehood. For example, I don't believe you're lying when you repeatedly make claims of "rightwing lies" without the facts to support it (or for that matter much in the way of examples). You just are ignorantly repeating falsehoods.
Here, my take is that Goddard (or whatever his name is) genuinely believes that the temperature records are being falsified in Antarctica and that the ice buildup such as it is shows that the temperatures are actually growing colder. I don't buy that, especially since he's picking and choosing what he wants to believe. But believing such things is not sufficient to be a liar.
The obvious rebuttal to such flowery language is that we have other problems than just global warming and several of those are much more severe, such as overpopulation, poverty, corruption, and habitat and arable land destruction.
And your claim was that a POPULAR BLOG SITE www.realclimatescience.com was reliable and the crushing rebuttal archived from realscience.com was not since it was closed thanks to low popularity
Not my claim. Seriously, read the thread and see who said what.
Ok, it appears that Tony Heller may have written under the name, Steven Goddard. But what is the evidence for fraud? You ever going to provide a link for that or even, a rational argument (which would be even better)?
"argumentum ad populum" "argumentum ad venicundium" and simple lying.
Words have meaning. "argumentum ad venicundium" is argument from authority which again, I haven't done here or elsewhere. But if we're to look for a ready example of the tactic, argument from consensus is a classic example of both fallacies you mentioned here.
As to "simple lying", you ignore here that lying is a deliberate telling of a falsehood. Since I have yet to tell a falsehood here much less a deliberate one, your accusation is completely irrelevant.
It's remarkable how completely shit your arguments have been to this point. I understand that your time is valueless to you, but my time has value to me. I see no point in arguing with someone who can't even do basic reasoning and rhetoric. At this point, it's not even educational for would-be passers-by. They can see your true colors.
argumentum ad populum does not support your "rejection" of the facts
Words have meaning. Here, "argumentum ad populum" means the fallacy of claiming something is true because many people believe it. A genuine example of such an fallacy is argument from consensus. What I find remarkable is the complete absence of such a fallacy from my writings and yet you still push this.
And once again, we see innuendo and absolutely no rational defense of their beliefs. Let me outline the problems with the link you provided:
1) I had to go to the Wayback Machine in order to reconstruct the actual story. You didn't bother to research your own link.
2) Tony Heller, the author of the story that the original AC linked to is not Judith Curry, the subject of the criticism you linked to. So non sequitur right there. Even if Curry were committing fraud, that doesn't say anything about Heller who is not Curry.
3) No actual evidence of fraud was presented in your link.
4) Why did that article disappear?
Let's go over three in more detail. The author, Ethan Siegel repeated claimed Judith Curry committed "scientific fraud". The basis of his argument? That if you drop the last two months of the study which had extremely high uncertainty due to extremely few station measurements, you get a different trend, but one which incidentally still shows the effect that Curry was speaking of. If you then cherry pick a different starting year (a low instead of a high), then you get a different slope. And that's assuming Siegel did the math right.
Because of this and Curry's informal statement to the press (which she claims was taken out of context), he claims scientific fraud. That's remarkably lousy grounds for such a claim. Here's a typical blurb:
The above graph shows that the temperature, since 1970, has risen at an average rate of about 0.25Â Celsius per decade. If the temperature hasn't risen -- or hasn't risen as quickly -- over the most recent times, then perhaps this is something to legitimately look at. But if the data indicates no recent "decline" or "slowing" at all, then this is a fraudulent contention. Let's get right into it.
Note two things. By this time, he already made a calculation that showed the alleged decline - though one that starts from a particular high point in the past. And since when has scientific fraud been the only way that someone could misrepresent or misunderstand data? This is a classic false dilemma fallacy.
Or are the fighters of the future just mobile weapons platforms?
The fighters of the present are of use only because they are mobile weapons platforms. The quality of the mobility and the kind of weapons are what makes fighter jets what they are.
You do have good points to the first generation. Once humans are removed from the cockpit, there likely won't be a hard limit to the size of vehicles, but it'll take considerable time for humanity or its successors to come up with good designs to take advantage.
Getting into space isn't going to move forwards meaningfully until we get a single stage to orbit vehicle.
I strongly disagree. On a single stage to orbit (SSTO) you have to carry everything with you. Your engines have to operate near optimally in atmosphere and vacuum (while a staged rocket can use different nozzle designs for the first and later stages, and get near optimal performance without requiring a complex system for changing the nozzle and inlet geometries and/or burn characteristics on the fly).
You further elaborated in a reply:
To qualify this a bit further, any vehicle that tries to continue to carry expensively heavy liquid oxygen around when there is an abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere just isn't going to be viable for single stage to orbit. It has to breathe air for as long as it can.
That means greatly increased air resistance right when you're trying to use that air to help generate thrust. The primary alternative is a kerosene-LOX two stage rocket which can already achieve costs under $3k per kg, is far less complex a system to operate, and may have better performance due to following a more aggressive trajectory which both gets out of the atmosphere ASAP and has lower gravity losses.
I've seen the future of wind farms, at the southern tip of Hawaii, in the plains of California... after fifteen to twenty years of playing with the toys they all end up as decaying eyesores once people realize they cost a lot more than they give back in power.
The problem here is that the technology of wind turbines changes. And one of the things that is changing is how much maintenance a wind turbine needs. For example, this link claims that average annual maintenance costs as a fraction of initial investment has gone from 3% for "older" wind turbines over their lifespan to 1.5-2% for current generation.
That is about a 6% ROI, at a time when banks get 3.5% on 30 year mortgages. Seems like a good investment to me.
You ignored the huge caveat:
That assumes no operating costs or maintenence costs.
It's 6% revenue on investment, not return on investment. With those other costs and who knows what other unknown costs the business will experience in the future, it's a lousy investment with some sort of subsidy.
But can you explain the high cost of maintenance of land based turbines in California?
Old designs.
And please explain why the water based units are maintenance free.
If they made so many installations then they must have made some headway on maintenance in a salt water environment.
And having said that, I don't buy that the current proposed plant makes sense. It has too low revenue per initial cost to justify it, even if it should be low maintenance.
I've looked through some of these lists and the ties are merely asserted. At that point, you could be speaking of a vast pool of people (far bigger than 10k people) whom the Clintons are "closely tied to".
While I'm not a US lawyer, my understanding is that Milo has no right to free speech at large, but only a right to stop government from impinging upon his "freedom" of speech. Corporations are private persons not government (though one might be forgiven for failing to apprehend the difference these days).
On the other hand, Milo may have inherited a right to free speech from his contract with Twitter or from advertising by Twitter. (I don't know since I've never bothered to read Twitter's terms of service or their ads.) For example, if I offer a public communication service and advertise that you can say anything on it, then censorship of legal speech in that situation would be a case of false advertising.
Anything can be misused, but social ostracism can't be banned, and won't be banned.
Actually, people like Milo who flout the norms of society do an excellent job of distracting the mob. So sure, it can't be banned, but right now, the mob is too busy obsessing over Milo than it is messing with me. That's the way I like it.
The Founding Fathers knew very well that the best way to control nasty-mouthed people was via society's powerful levers of shame and shunning, and the State itself should never pick the winners.
The founding fathers had a phrase for that, "mob rule" and they were not big fans of it.
These are the kinds of people who think a CEO of a company, that is its chief manager, can openly say homophobic things, even when many of the people working for him may be LGBTQ, because, "RIGHTS!"
Were you equally pleased when society's "powerful levers of shame and shunning" were used a generation ago to ostracize your alphabet soup of sexuality rather than support it? Where there was no guarantee for someone who just was a little different gender or sex-wise that "neighbors won't despise you, that your boss won't sack you, that your kids won't think your awful, and that you'll feel the narrow eyes of your fellow human beings on the back of your neck when you're buying some Corn Flakes at the store"?
Social ostracism is a very dubious tool that has been grossly misused in the past. I think it's still being misused in the present.
The problem is that instead of punishing unethical behaviour you're now rewarding it.
The organizations who thrive in the new wikileaks system are the ones unscrupulous enough to hack their rivals and leak their dirty laundry.
And the obvious rebuttal is that it is dirty laundry and stirs conflict between the powerful. A leak is by definition information which is acquired and released in a way that is nominally unethical and usually illegal. The whole justification for encouraging leaks in the first place is the moral value of exposing skullduggery by the powerful. If you are suddenly going to care about the morality of acquiring the information in the first place, then why would there be any moral value to Wikileaks in the first place?
Finally, how is Wikileaks going to evaluate the motives of a hacker and why did that suddenly become relevant? How would some of the more prominent leakers fare like Snowden?
I agree it's newsworthy, but in the exchange itself Assange didn't come across as "I think I encountered a major conflict of interest you kept hidden" but "I discovered one of your secrets and I'll use it to destroy you".
If so, that is bizarre. The information just isn't that significant aside aside from the conflict of interest. It's pretty blinding obvious. It's on par with discovering that someone reads the Snoopy comic in its power to destroy.
And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?
It's a private donation by a public figure who just so happens to have a likely conflict of interest in this interview.
Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.
What's supposed to be bad about that? The alleged opponents in questions are also powerful entities. Looks to me like Wikileaks is holding true to its mission.
And you're missing my point, which is that the left's fringe is fueled by horror stories they see around the world.
So what? Censorship does nothing to improve those horror stories, even if by happenstance someone actually involved with one of those horror stories is affected. What makes these would-be censors and their misguided attempts more worthy of our understanding or respect than the people they censor?
If you spend a few years studying that (e.g. if you're rocking an actual history degree as opposed to reading Fark from time to time) then you're gonna be a litter jittery if you're not part of the winning class. In America that's white European males. That's real. That's a thing. It didn't have to be them, but it is. And if you're not one of them... if your on the outside looking in... then you'd be a fool to believe that 5000 years of history was wiped away by 50-100 years of good behavior.
That's not real. That's bullshit. History is not behavior. And 50-100 years of good behavior means everyone responsible for the "history" is dead. Why are you blaming "white European males" (who are those people again?) for problems they had nothing to do with?
Sorry, I'm still not feeling it. There's only so much pampering and coddling you can do of people that far down the road. And nobody yet has explained why that's supposed to be a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
With an algorithm like this, available to individuals, they (this new startup) could have made the assessment of whether I was likely to win the case, and funded it if so.
You've already consulted several professional lawyers on the matter. Why would the algorithm be any different? The only thing I see that could be relevant is that the business might be able to tap into commercial financial records or spending patterns of your relative and determine at the least that they had a sudden surge of wealth or spending about the time of the supposed appropriation.
Your claim.
I notice you have yet to dispute any of my claims with facts.
So many rightwing lies, so many facts
"Lie" and "fact" means things. We don't actually have evidence that Steven Goddard is lying. Remember lying is not just saying a falsehood, but saying it while believing it is a falsehood. For example, I don't believe you're lying when you repeatedly make claims of "rightwing lies" without the facts to support it (or for that matter much in the way of examples). You just are ignorantly repeating falsehoods.
Here, my take is that Goddard (or whatever his name is) genuinely believes that the temperature records are being falsified in Antarctica and that the ice buildup such as it is shows that the temperatures are actually growing colder. I don't buy that, especially since he's picking and choosing what he wants to believe. But believing such things is not sufficient to be a liar.
The obvious rebuttal to such flowery language is that we have other problems than just global warming and several of those are much more severe, such as overpopulation, poverty, corruption, and habitat and arable land destruction.
And your claim was that a POPULAR BLOG SITE www.realclimatescience.com was reliable and the crushing rebuttal archived from realscience.com was not since it was closed thanks to low popularity
Not my claim. Seriously, read the thread and see who said what.
"argumentum ad populum" "argumentum ad venicundium" and simple lying.
Words have meaning. "argumentum ad venicundium" is argument from authority which again, I haven't done here or elsewhere. But if we're to look for a ready example of the tactic, argument from consensus is a classic example of both fallacies you mentioned here.
As to "simple lying", you ignore here that lying is a deliberate telling of a falsehood. Since I have yet to tell a falsehood here much less a deliberate one, your accusation is completely irrelevant.
It's remarkable how completely shit your arguments have been to this point. I understand that your time is valueless to you, but my time has value to me. I see no point in arguing with someone who can't even do basic reasoning and rhetoric. At this point, it's not even educational for would-be passers-by. They can see your true colors.
argumentum ad populum does not support your "rejection" of the facts
Words have meaning. Here, "argumentum ad populum" means the fallacy of claiming something is true because many people believe it. A genuine example of such an fallacy is argument from consensus. What I find remarkable is the complete absence of such a fallacy from my writings and yet you still push this.
"But they call us names!" Science doesn't work that way.
1) I had to go to the Wayback Machine in order to reconstruct the actual story. You didn't bother to research your own link.
2) Tony Heller, the author of the story that the original AC linked to is not Judith Curry, the subject of the criticism you linked to. So non sequitur right there. Even if Curry were committing fraud, that doesn't say anything about Heller who is not Curry.
3) No actual evidence of fraud was presented in your link.
4) Why did that article disappear?
Let's go over three in more detail. The author, Ethan Siegel repeated claimed Judith Curry committed "scientific fraud". The basis of his argument? That if you drop the last two months of the study which had extremely high uncertainty due to extremely few station measurements, you get a different trend, but one which incidentally still shows the effect that Curry was speaking of. If you then cherry pick a different starting year (a low instead of a high), then you get a different slope. And that's assuming Siegel did the math right.
Because of this and Curry's informal statement to the press (which she claims was taken out of context), he claims scientific fraud. That's remarkably lousy grounds for such a claim. Here's a typical blurb:
The above graph shows that the temperature, since 1970, has risen at an average rate of about 0.25Â Celsius per decade. If the temperature hasn't risen -- or hasn't risen as quickly -- over the most recent times, then perhaps this is something to legitimately look at. But if the data indicates no recent "decline" or "slowing" at all, then this is a fraudulent contention. Let's get right into it.
Note two things. By this time, he already made a calculation that showed the alleged decline - though one that starts from a particular high point in the past. And since when has scientific fraud been the only way that someone could misrepresent or misunderstand data? This is a classic false dilemma fallacy.
The fact
Opinion is still not fact especially when it's not based on fact.
Air combat?
Bingo. For example, Oxford dictionary has this to say about fighter jets:
A fast jet-powered military aircraft designed for attacking other aircraft:
There's a reason the link to the actual article disappeared. TL;DR another hothead on the internet libels someone whose opinion he doesn't share.
Or are the fighters of the future just mobile weapons platforms?
The fighters of the present are of use only because they are mobile weapons platforms. The quality of the mobility and the kind of weapons are what makes fighter jets what they are.
You do have good points to the first generation. Once humans are removed from the cockpit, there likely won't be a hard limit to the size of vehicles, but it'll take considerable time for humanity or its successors to come up with good designs to take advantage.
Getting into space isn't going to move forwards meaningfully until we get a single stage to orbit vehicle.
I strongly disagree. On a single stage to orbit (SSTO) you have to carry everything with you. Your engines have to operate near optimally in atmosphere and vacuum (while a staged rocket can use different nozzle designs for the first and later stages, and get near optimal performance without requiring a complex system for changing the nozzle and inlet geometries and/or burn characteristics on the fly).
You further elaborated in a reply:
To qualify this a bit further, any vehicle that tries to continue to carry expensively heavy liquid oxygen around when there is an abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere just isn't going to be viable for single stage to orbit. It has to breathe air for as long as it can.
That means greatly increased air resistance right when you're trying to use that air to help generate thrust. The primary alternative is a kerosene-LOX two stage rocket which can already achieve costs under $3k per kg, is far less complex a system to operate, and may have better performance due to following a more aggressive trajectory which both gets out of the atmosphere ASAP and has lower gravity losses.
From what I read, parts of the costs is additional infrastructure, that would likely be relevant even w/o the farm.
Unless the infrastructure isn't used without the wind farm.
I've seen the future of wind farms, at the southern tip of Hawaii, in the plains of California... after fifteen to twenty years of playing with the toys they all end up as decaying eyesores once people realize they cost a lot more than they give back in power.
The problem here is that the technology of wind turbines changes. And one of the things that is changing is how much maintenance a wind turbine needs. For example, this link claims that average annual maintenance costs as a fraction of initial investment has gone from 3% for "older" wind turbines over their lifespan to 1.5-2% for current generation.
That is about a 6% ROI, at a time when banks get 3.5% on 30 year mortgages. Seems like a good investment to me.
You ignored the huge caveat:
That assumes no operating costs or maintenence costs.
It's 6% revenue on investment, not return on investment. With those other costs and who knows what other unknown costs the business will experience in the future, it's a lousy investment with some sort of subsidy.
But can you explain the high cost of maintenance of land based turbines in California?
Old designs.
And please explain why the water based units are maintenance free.
If they made so many installations then they must have made some headway on maintenance in a salt water environment.
And having said that, I don't buy that the current proposed plant makes sense. It has too low revenue per initial cost to justify it, even if it should be low maintenance.
I've looked through some of these lists and the ties are merely asserted. At that point, you could be speaking of a vast pool of people (far bigger than 10k people) whom the Clintons are "closely tied to".
While I'm not a US lawyer, my understanding is that Milo has no right to free speech at large, but only a right to stop government from impinging upon his "freedom" of speech. Corporations are private persons not government (though one might be forgiven for failing to apprehend the difference these days).
On the other hand, Milo may have inherited a right to free speech from his contract with Twitter or from advertising by Twitter. (I don't know since I've never bothered to read Twitter's terms of service or their ads.) For example, if I offer a public communication service and advertise that you can say anything on it, then censorship of legal speech in that situation would be a case of false advertising.
Anything can be misused, but social ostracism can't be banned, and won't be banned.
Actually, people like Milo who flout the norms of society do an excellent job of distracting the mob. So sure, it can't be banned, but right now, the mob is too busy obsessing over Milo than it is messing with me. That's the way I like it.
The Founding Fathers knew very well that the best way to control nasty-mouthed people was via society's powerful levers of shame and shunning, and the State itself should never pick the winners.
The founding fathers had a phrase for that, "mob rule" and they were not big fans of it.
These are the kinds of people who think a CEO of a company, that is its chief manager, can openly say homophobic things, even when many of the people working for him may be LGBTQ, because, "RIGHTS!"
Were you equally pleased when society's "powerful levers of shame and shunning" were used a generation ago to ostracize your alphabet soup of sexuality rather than support it? Where there was no guarantee for someone who just was a little different gender or sex-wise that "neighbors won't despise you, that your boss won't sack you, that your kids won't think your awful, and that you'll feel the narrow eyes of your fellow human beings on the back of your neck when you're buying some Corn Flakes at the store"?
Social ostracism is a very dubious tool that has been grossly misused in the past. I think it's still being misused in the present.
The problem is that instead of punishing unethical behaviour you're now rewarding it.
The organizations who thrive in the new wikileaks system are the ones unscrupulous enough to hack their rivals and leak their dirty laundry.
And the obvious rebuttal is that it is dirty laundry and stirs conflict between the powerful. A leak is by definition information which is acquired and released in a way that is nominally unethical and usually illegal. The whole justification for encouraging leaks in the first place is the moral value of exposing skullduggery by the powerful. If you are suddenly going to care about the morality of acquiring the information in the first place, then why would there be any moral value to Wikileaks in the first place?
Finally, how is Wikileaks going to evaluate the motives of a hacker and why did that suddenly become relevant? How would some of the more prominent leakers fare like Snowden?
I agree it's newsworthy, but in the exchange itself Assange didn't come across as "I think I encountered a major conflict of interest you kept hidden" but "I discovered one of your secrets and I'll use it to destroy you".
If so, that is bizarre. The information just isn't that significant aside aside from the conflict of interest. It's pretty blinding obvious. It's on par with discovering that someone reads the Snoopy comic in its power to destroy.
And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?
It's a private donation by a public figure who just so happens to have a likely conflict of interest in this interview.
Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.
What's supposed to be bad about that? The alleged opponents in questions are also powerful entities. Looks to me like Wikileaks is holding true to its mission.
And you're missing my point, which is that the left's fringe is fueled by horror stories they see around the world.
So what? Censorship does nothing to improve those horror stories, even if by happenstance someone actually involved with one of those horror stories is affected. What makes these would-be censors and their misguided attempts more worthy of our understanding or respect than the people they censor?
If you spend a few years studying that (e.g. if you're rocking an actual history degree as opposed to reading Fark from time to time) then you're gonna be a litter jittery if you're not part of the winning class. In America that's white European males. That's real. That's a thing. It didn't have to be them, but it is. And if you're not one of them... if your on the outside looking in... then you'd be a fool to believe that 5000 years of history was wiped away by 50-100 years of good behavior.
That's not real. That's bullshit. History is not behavior. And 50-100 years of good behavior means everyone responsible for the "history" is dead. Why are you blaming "white European males" (who are those people again?) for problems they had nothing to do with?
Sorry, I'm still not feeling it. There's only so much pampering and coddling you can do of people that far down the road. And nobody yet has explained why that's supposed to be a good idea.