In UT 03, we discovered that the nuke would reduce a player's score but not a team score in team death match. We would get the reclaimer and run into a group of the opposing side and shoot the floor.
Actually it is insightful into your work and position. Your blog and posting history on/. framed you differently.
Bias in the Vostok data is actually good exercise for you to work through, which helps enforce the fundamental flaws in your research so you can fix it. In my work, I have to depend on government data sources, since they are the major supplier of health care data. When working with interpreted data, I need to understand the bias of the department that produced the data, which is normally the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Their bias is centered around reducing the cost of provided services, which tends to deflate cost reports. That is why I am starting to work on longitudinal studies of the limited data set (lds), which means that some Patient Identification (PI) has been scrubbed out, is is about as raw as it gets. Comparing it to cost reports from CMS, surveys from hospitals, and the public financial documents of hospitals will allow for a more complete picture. However, I have to realize that lds is raw data and has not been fixed for errors in requests and the actions of the Recovery Audit Contractors. Comparison across all of this data will help reduce the amount of errors.
Brevity is not your goal. Conciseness is your goal. I have seen too many of my grad students cut their own throat by trying to be brief. Conversely, I have seen many of them try to beat me down with a wall of text. Usually structure, lack of citations, and the conclusion catch both parties.
What are the problems with the Vostok data? What are the bias in the sources you used for the Vostok data interpretation? You cover it in a haphazard method. What might be a better strategy is to cover it in clear sections. In addition, covering base assumptions in the data and the biases of the producers of the data is appropriate. For example, what are the biases of the IPCC?
When discussing your expertise, which you brought to the forefront by stating that you are a climate scientist, it might be better stating that you are a grad student working on theoretical and computational physics with work in using gravitational analysis on glaciers. When you use general terms with the assumption that people will not understand your work or question your appropriateness, then it makes it easy to question your statement of expertise. For example, I am a doctoral student with a masters with a specialization in health care management and advanced management studies, with significant course work in project management (almost done with that specialization) and organizational and strategic analysis, professional experience in IT project management, systems analysis, and non-profit management, and research work in evidence-based nursing and reimbursement systems. So, if I am talking about organizational factors with reimbursement, then I would be an appropriate expert. Discussing mechanical engineering from the position of an expert would not be appropriate for me. If your credentials were that you read some articles without a background in climatology or even critical analysis, then it would be harder to believe what you say.
Remember that most critical analysis techniques on your work, even when talking with people in public, will be to determine what the appropriateness of your background. When you continue to raise red flags in consideration of critical analysis, such as gross generalizations, you continue to present your side of a discussion as a politically motivated hack, not a scholar. This is exacerbated by the use of the Climate Action Network Canada as a source, a site that shows significant bias.
Actually, I am reading what academics should be reading into your writings. You make bold statements without considerations of what you say, which shows sloppy academic writing skills - which show whether your anonymous or not. I realize that you might not get this from your professors, but in my doctoral program these are important factors since it is stressed that policy makers will make legislation and regulation decisions off our work. We are taught to communicate to all levels and consider our audience.
It is not a sociological claim that all climate scientists are politically motivated. It is opinion. Just as your comments are opinion when not backed up by evidence, analysis, and synthesis. You can't refute someone by making poor statements. When you make easily defeatable statements based on gross generalizations, then you put yourself and any information you provide in question. Editors and peer reviewers should question your work.
I worry about the field of climatology and related research, since they present themselves as walking lockstep and any disagreements being arisen from wankers. This is also my problem with discrimination research, were it is very difficult to get results of no discrimination published. In the health care management, public health, and project management fields, where I specialize, we can sometimes have holy wars over theory. Take someone with more of a sociological background and mix them with someone with more of an economic background and start bets on who wins the fist fight. We don't even try to give a perception that we agree with each other. It would be fruitless. Informed disagreement is what drives scientific advancements.
I think you are just an impassioned student that has been involved in some research and think of yourself as an expert. You just have poor presentation skills, which is quite common among the hard sciences, especially the faddish ones. Work on learning to be eloquent in your communication and you will not get other scholars, such as I, questioning your work due to the lack of presentation skills.
Get and read the book I suggest, study epistemology, and learn how to apply critical thought to what you write. Otherwise, your just an elitist dick who posts on/. and worries too much about the people who disagree with him, since his god complex means that he isn't ever wrong. Good science is not just playing out in the field or lab, but communicating with both the profession and the public in constructive ways. You have to admit that several climatologists have managed to present themselves as being raving lunatics.
First day in epistemology: Who is the source? What are the biases inherit to such sources? Does the author recognize those biases? What epistemological, axiological, ontological, and methodological approaches and beliefs create the theoretical lens that the author uses? These questions show that who the author is and what the author's theoretical lens does matter. I highly suggest you read the The Craft of Research by Booth, Colomb, and Williams.
I already see a set theory flaw within your statement, where you assume that all climatologists are computational physicists. Thurston is a Bioinformatics Specialist, associated with Climate Dynamics group at Oxford. Kininmonth is a meteorologist. Ruddiman is a marine geologist. If I saw an academic paper with such an inclusive statement from a student of mine, then they would told to rewrite.
By a literature review, it seems mostly statistics and modeling, forming a physical science discipline. This would mean that you are casting a very wide net in your definition, making someone studying computational physics an economist, game theorist (which may or may not be an economist), or even a positivist sociologist. Just the measurement and analysis of data does not make one a climatologist. The specialization education makes someone a climatologist, where they study in depth the literature and body of knowledge to understand the field.
For example, Dr. Kielpinski, a significant quantum physicist, would likely have a difficulty understanding game theory, even though the math between the two are similar. It is the detail of the body of knowledge, with field-based assumptions, that brings true understanding of a subject. It is that what makes a scholar of a subject.
Ok, I have to adapt an internet mime for this: Peer reviewed or it didn't happen. Even then it would have to pass the critical analysis test. You present no metrics, sample pool data, or descriptive statistics and yet expect your personnal experience to be taken at face value. You make to many assumptions. Bad scientist. No grant money for you.
It is also hard to take a 'climate scientist' seriously when you qoute yourself as studing computational and theoretical physics, which is outside climatology. A good scientist knows when not to present themselves as an expert in a field they are not.
Had a discussion with one of my security guys and he had a very insightful point. Security is the best when there is a disparate security apparatus, where I might use X, Y, and Z vendors for my security solution and my competitor uses A, B, and C. This creates complexity for malicious hackers due to complexity created by this disparity. By mandating standards, the Government creates a target that security vendors have to reach and have no incentive to go beyond that standard. This might create an unintended consequence that net security value goes down due to similar approaches.
My current research is centered on the reimbursement systems of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). I have noticed that CMS and Congress are good at making decisions that focus on some hot button issue, without considering the fallout of those decisions. For example, the Prospective Payment System (PPS) of Medicare and Medicaid has lowered health quality due to changes in incentive. Conversely, the proposed fixes to PPS, Pay for Performance (P4P) and non-payments of Hospital Acquired Conditions (HACs) are regressive in nature, targeting the urban and rural poor disproportionally.
The fact of these unintended consequences that the government creates gives me a nice, warm feeling on the future of cyber security.
Actually, I don't understand Arabic, but the gaggle of Arabic linguists that I know due to the mission of the local military base do. However, I speak a fair amount of Japanese. This is the problem with ad hominem fallicies. Your equivocation of salam and Islam in of itself is a logical fallicy.
I have to agree. Us within the IS and IT divisions and departments of corporations fail to do the required business analysis before we make a recommendation. My three questions are:
Does it generate money?
Does it save money?
Does it reduce risk
Then I do a comparison of its cost vs. the benefit. These are basic business school type of analysis that IT needs to learn. I have yet seen someone in IT do an analysis on what a project will do to the balance sheet and income statement.
I recommend testing of all technical IT staff. I have seen more then one 'administrator' coming from another company with great references and certs turning out to have no practical capability and was the 'license' manager. We quiz programmers and project managers on stuff, so why wouldn't we have a technical resource do a practical?
The cited research is highly flawed. When you have someone self-report, they tend to scew highly based off what they think you want to hear. This is caused some interesting cases in child-reported abuse. Psychologists have proven that the interviewer has more impact on the chance that abuse has been reported then the factuality of the abuse. Some of my research involves self-reporting surveys, which I have to warn repeatedly about that fact.
This reminds me of the man who got sent back to jail because the parole dept of SF didn't like that he overpowered a home invader and shot the invader's partner in self-defense, since parolees can't have posession of a handgun. Sigh.
All the time actually. This is why we don't use linux. Our AIX systems allow us to do such, so do most of the Windows systems. You might need some admin rights, but no where near root.
Unfortunately you are right - for the wrong reasons. Consultants bring in experience that you currently do not have in a "consultancy role". In other words, they help you by providing analyzing a situation with a skill-set that you currently do not have. Conversely, contractors do work. I will bring in a network consultant to analyze my network, looking into potential issues or to after action a major issue that my network admins can't explain. I bring in network contractors to run cable and install routers. Consultants answers questions, contractors perform work that is needed on a short term basis.
The issue comes up with the question asked is how can a business become more efficient. When I do my business analysis task, I am looking how I can remove waste from the process. This usually means how I can cut down on supply, admin, or employee costs. If I am looking on how I can handle a job task with less employees by automation, then I will likely be removing FTEs, either through layoffs, job task transitions, or attrition. Using EDI for Invoicing now, there is a reduction in employees. Virtualizing servers to make admin easier, there is a reduction in employees. In business, things should be done for one of two reasons, it makes money or it saves money.
Slashdot Mirror
In UT 03, we discovered that the nuke would reduce a player's score but not a team score in team death match. We would get the reclaimer and run into a group of the opposing side and shoot the floor.
Actually it is insightful into your work and position. Your blog and posting history on /. framed you differently.
Bias in the Vostok data is actually good exercise for you to work through, which helps enforce the fundamental flaws in your research so you can fix it. In my work, I have to depend on government data sources, since they are the major supplier of health care data. When working with interpreted data, I need to understand the bias of the department that produced the data, which is normally the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Their bias is centered around reducing the cost of provided services, which tends to deflate cost reports. That is why I am starting to work on longitudinal studies of the limited data set (lds), which means that some Patient Identification (PI) has been scrubbed out, is is about as raw as it gets. Comparing it to cost reports from CMS, surveys from hospitals, and the public financial documents of hospitals will allow for a more complete picture. However, I have to realize that lds is raw data and has not been fixed for errors in requests and the actions of the Recovery Audit Contractors. Comparison across all of this data will help reduce the amount of errors.
Brevity is not your goal. Conciseness is your goal. I have seen too many of my grad students cut their own throat by trying to be brief. Conversely, I have seen many of them try to beat me down with a wall of text. Usually structure, lack of citations, and the conclusion catch both parties.
What are the problems with the Vostok data? What are the bias in the sources you used for the Vostok data interpretation? You cover it in a haphazard method. What might be a better strategy is to cover it in clear sections. In addition, covering base assumptions in the data and the biases of the producers of the data is appropriate. For example, what are the biases of the IPCC?
When discussing your expertise, which you brought to the forefront by stating that you are a climate scientist, it might be better stating that you are a grad student working on theoretical and computational physics with work in using gravitational analysis on glaciers. When you use general terms with the assumption that people will not understand your work or question your appropriateness, then it makes it easy to question your statement of expertise. For example, I am a doctoral student with a masters with a specialization in health care management and advanced management studies, with significant course work in project management (almost done with that specialization) and organizational and strategic analysis, professional experience in IT project management, systems analysis, and non-profit management, and research work in evidence-based nursing and reimbursement systems. So, if I am talking about organizational factors with reimbursement, then I would be an appropriate expert. Discussing mechanical engineering from the position of an expert would not be appropriate for me. If your credentials were that you read some articles without a background in climatology or even critical analysis, then it would be harder to believe what you say.
Remember that most critical analysis techniques on your work, even when talking with people in public, will be to determine what the appropriateness of your background. When you continue to raise red flags in consideration of critical analysis, such as gross generalizations, you continue to present your side of a discussion as a politically motivated hack, not a scholar. This is exacerbated by the use of the Climate Action Network Canada as a source, a site that shows significant bias.
Actually, I am reading what academics should be reading into your writings. You make bold statements without considerations of what you say, which shows sloppy academic writing skills - which show whether your anonymous or not. I realize that you might not get this from your professors, but in my doctoral program these are important factors since it is stressed that policy makers will make legislation and regulation decisions off our work. We are taught to communicate to all levels and consider our audience.
It is not a sociological claim that all climate scientists are politically motivated. It is opinion. Just as your comments are opinion when not backed up by evidence, analysis, and synthesis. You can't refute someone by making poor statements. When you make easily defeatable statements based on gross generalizations, then you put yourself and any information you provide in question. Editors and peer reviewers should question your work.
I worry about the field of climatology and related research, since they present themselves as walking lockstep and any disagreements being arisen from wankers. This is also my problem with discrimination research, were it is very difficult to get results of no discrimination published. In the health care management, public health, and project management fields, where I specialize, we can sometimes have holy wars over theory. Take someone with more of a sociological background and mix them with someone with more of an economic background and start bets on who wins the fist fight. We don't even try to give a perception that we agree with each other. It would be fruitless. Informed disagreement is what drives scientific advancements.
I think you are just an impassioned student that has been involved in some research and think of yourself as an expert. You just have poor presentation skills, which is quite common among the hard sciences, especially the faddish ones. Work on learning to be eloquent in your communication and you will not get other scholars, such as I, questioning your work due to the lack of presentation skills.
Get and read the book I suggest, study epistemology, and learn how to apply critical thought to what you write. Otherwise, your just an elitist dick who posts on /. and worries too much about the people who disagree with him, since his god complex means that he isn't ever wrong. Good science is not just playing out in the field or lab, but communicating with both the profession and the public in constructive ways. You have to admit that several climatologists have managed to present themselves as being raving lunatics.
First day in epistemology: Who is the source? What are the biases inherit to such sources? Does the author recognize those biases? What epistemological, axiological, ontological, and methodological approaches and beliefs create the theoretical lens that the author uses? These questions show that who the author is and what the author's theoretical lens does matter. I highly suggest you read the The Craft of Research by Booth, Colomb, and Williams.
I already see a set theory flaw within your statement, where you assume that all climatologists are computational physicists. Thurston is a Bioinformatics Specialist, associated with Climate Dynamics group at Oxford. Kininmonth is a meteorologist. Ruddiman is a marine geologist. If I saw an academic paper with such an inclusive statement from a student of mine, then they would told to rewrite.
By a literature review, it seems mostly statistics and modeling, forming a physical science discipline. This would mean that you are casting a very wide net in your definition, making someone studying computational physics an economist, game theorist (which may or may not be an economist), or even a positivist sociologist. Just the measurement and analysis of data does not make one a climatologist. The specialization education makes someone a climatologist, where they study in depth the literature and body of knowledge to understand the field.
For example, Dr. Kielpinski, a significant quantum physicist, would likely have a difficulty understanding game theory, even though the math between the two are similar. It is the detail of the body of knowledge, with field-based assumptions, that brings true understanding of a subject. It is that what makes a scholar of a subject.
Ok, I have to adapt an internet mime for this: Peer reviewed or it didn't happen. Even then it would have to pass the critical analysis test. You present no metrics, sample pool data, or descriptive statistics and yet expect your personnal experience to be taken at face value. You make to many assumptions. Bad scientist. No grant money for you.
It is also hard to take a 'climate scientist' seriously when you qoute yourself as studing computational and theoretical physics, which is outside climatology. A good scientist knows when not to present themselves as an expert in a field they are not.
Had a discussion with one of my security guys and he had a very insightful point. Security is the best when there is a disparate security apparatus, where I might use X, Y, and Z vendors for my security solution and my competitor uses A, B, and C. This creates complexity for malicious hackers due to complexity created by this disparity. By mandating standards, the Government creates a target that security vendors have to reach and have no incentive to go beyond that standard. This might create an unintended consequence that net security value goes down due to similar approaches.
My current research is centered on the reimbursement systems of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). I have noticed that CMS and Congress are good at making decisions that focus on some hot button issue, without considering the fallout of those decisions. For example, the Prospective Payment System (PPS) of Medicare and Medicaid has lowered health quality due to changes in incentive. Conversely, the proposed fixes to PPS, Pay for Performance (P4P) and non-payments of Hospital Acquired Conditions (HACs) are regressive in nature, targeting the urban and rural poor disproportionally.
The fact of these unintended consequences that the government creates gives me a nice, warm feeling on the future of cyber security.
I could actually see some executive thinking such a thing is a brilliant idea.
I think this will be even more ground in then my ui is lower then yours.
It is a non-story until my work gets infected.
I could actually see this.
We are exceptions to the rule
You can't go wrong with MSDN. Heck, some of the xslt docs are better then w3cschools.
And qas (Priest) is the root word for qassaba (Butcher), must mean butchers are priests.
Actually, I don't understand Arabic, but the gaggle of Arabic linguists that I know due to the mission of the local military base do. However, I speak a fair amount of Japanese. This is the problem with ad hominem fallicies. Your equivocation of salam and Islam in of itself is a logical fallicy.
Tieing a linguistic root does not mean that two words are in the same spirit. One means peace, the other means submission.
I have to agree. Us within the IS and IT divisions and departments of corporations fail to do the required business analysis before we make a recommendation. My three questions are:
Then I do a comparison of its cost vs. the benefit. These are basic business school type of analysis that IT needs to learn. I have yet seen someone in IT do an analysis on what a project will do to the balance sheet and income statement.
Islam means submission, not peace.
I recommend testing of all technical IT staff. I have seen more then one 'administrator' coming from another company with great references and certs turning out to have no practical capability and was the 'license' manager. We quiz programmers and project managers on stuff, so why wouldn't we have a technical resource do a practical?
The cited research is highly flawed. When you have someone self-report, they tend to scew highly based off what they think you want to hear. This is caused some interesting cases in child-reported abuse. Psychologists have proven that the interviewer has more impact on the chance that abuse has been reported then the factuality of the abuse. Some of my research involves self-reporting surveys, which I have to warn repeatedly about that fact.
Yes, but the handgun was the home invader's.
This reminds me of the man who got sent back to jail because the parole dept of SF didn't like that he overpowered a home invader and shot the invader's partner in self-defense, since parolees can't have posession of a handgun. Sigh.
All the time actually. This is why we don't use linux. Our AIX systems allow us to do such, so do most of the Windows systems. You might need some admin rights, but no where near root.
Unfortunately you are right - for the wrong reasons. Consultants bring in experience that you currently do not have in a "consultancy role". In other words, they help you by providing analyzing a situation with a skill-set that you currently do not have. Conversely, contractors do work. I will bring in a network consultant to analyze my network, looking into potential issues or to after action a major issue that my network admins can't explain. I bring in network contractors to run cable and install routers. Consultants answers questions, contractors perform work that is needed on a short term basis.
The issue comes up with the question asked is how can a business become more efficient. When I do my business analysis task, I am looking how I can remove waste from the process. This usually means how I can cut down on supply, admin, or employee costs. If I am looking on how I can handle a job task with less employees by automation, then I will likely be removing FTEs, either through layoffs, job task transitions, or attrition. Using EDI for Invoicing now, there is a reduction in employees. Virtualizing servers to make admin easier, there is a reduction in employees. In business, things should be done for one of two reasons, it makes money or it saves money.