I can't. His wave function ran away when I opened up the box. I've left out some
potential wells as a trap, but I've caught nothing but a few stray electrons.
I mean, global warming is like 99.99999% true, same with evolution, but we still have people who don't have a clue and doubt blatant facts because they don't understand things like the specific heat capacity of water, or that evolution isn't globs of crap off the ground suddenly turning into animals and people.
No, sir, "global warming" (and I assume you mean AGW) is either true or it isn't. There is no 50% or 80% with facts. The same for evolution (and I assume by that you mean "origin of life"). Either global warming is happening or it isn't. Either evolution is how life began or it isn't.
Now, you can say that global warming, as a whole, is caused 50% by AGW and 50% by natural causes, but that's not the same as saying global warming is 50% true.
The only time percentages come into play is when defining how much you believe either theory is a fact, but that does not change for an instant whether it is truly a fact or not.
Sure, the numbers can sometimes be wrong, but they are not wrong 75% of the time. Not even 50% or 25%, but less.
That is also not true. It is easy for "the numbers" to be wrong 100% of the time. For example, if you mount your weather instruments in a black box with no vents, or near a blacktop parking lot, or close to a building's AC vents (the latter two are documented errors in NOAA installations) your measured temperatures are guaranteed to be wrong nearly 100% of the time, and you can't tell for sure when they are right, so you can trust them 0% of the time.
Several years ago, remote sensing scientists realized the equations they were using to correct satellite temperature readings were wrong. That means yes, indeed, up to the point they changed the equations, the numbers were wrong 100% of the time. Not the raw numbers, but the results of converting those units into temps. Close, maybe, but when we're talking tenths of a degree changes meaning AGW is or isn't true, still wrong.
" been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC" - Why is it any arrest results in fines that some fed agency collects....
What struck me in that statement is the "give BACK" part. You can't "give back" unless something has been given TO you. So, why did the FTC GIVE this outfit $1.08 MILLION in the first place? Or is the author not a native english speaker?
- if the GP meant blast in the "blow it up" sense that would be really bad.
Is this really/., where nerds hang out? Everyone knows that a space blaster causes a complete disintegration of the object/person being blasted, no shrapnel.
You cannot make policy around rare medical conditions.
It would be nice if diabetes was rare, but hardly so. If you do not make policies considering medical conditions, you wind up with stupid policies that kill people.
And here's an example of policies that take into account rare conditions: the ADA. I can count the number of people who need a ramp where I work on no hands. Yet ramps are mandatory. Just in case.
The issue here seems simply that the school has a policy against hard candy, the students knew that, and broke the rules.
So screw any diabetics who carry a few hard candies in case they go hypoglycemic, I guess.
Here's a novel concept. Instead of banning hard candies, ban making messes and punish those who do. I can't recall the last time a Jolly Rancher climbed out of my pocket and made a mess somewhere -- even when I've forgotten to take him out of my pocket before I do the laundry. Kinda nice that way, sugar dissolves in hot water pretty well, rinses right way and all you have is a small wrapper left over.
Re:Vim most definitely can't "do everything"
on
Hacking Vim 7.2
·
· Score: 1
Case in point: I want it to show me a vertical line at 80 chars, like TextMate or GEdit. Not even GVim can do this.:-)
My copy of vim does. It's called "the right edge of the window". That's why running an xterm in 80x24 is good.
My main peeve with vim is when it goes into "recording mode" or whatever that nonsense is, when I try to ":q" and hit something by mistake and the screen splits. I still don't know what I did wrong. And that vim always wants to go back to the last place in the file you edited, even if you edited the file ten years ago and really want to start at the top. The only way I found around that one is to make the.viminfo file chmod 000 so it can't save status.
The data gets released when the analysis is released
You are confusing "nice, pretty plots in a journal article" with "data".
Data is what one starts with. Journals do not want you to publish "data", it's boring and needs to be analyzed and worked up. Journals want procedures and results.
Were journals to be filled with data, they'd be 1) huge, 2) even more expensive than they are now, and 3) boring. Were journals to publish data along with the manuscript, it would not have taken years and dumb luck to catch the "super scientist" who was duplicating his data and plots for years. No, I don't remember his name, and I don't remember enough of the details to google it.
And why should we trust this data to armchair scientists to begin with?
What is there not to trust? You do realize, I hope, that a large number of "climate scientists" are "armchair" in the sense they aren't trained as climate scientists to start with. And that a large amount of astronomical data comes from "armchair scientists". Science is science. You don't need a Ph.D to be a scientist.
Does this person seriously believe every scientist was keeping AGW data in the dark?
Do you seriously believe that every scientist is involved in AGW research so every scientist has AGW data?
The guy who created the hockey stick brouhaha certainly did keep the data "in the dark", in that he did not release it to other scientists.
Why is crap like this modded up?
Because it isn't "crap", and maybe the moderators who modded it up are getting sick and tired of the name calling and insulting attitude of those who push AGW down the rest of our throats. Just a thought, Anonymous Coward.
That's a flaw in the logic that puts the whole issue into the political arena to start with.
There is no control group, no chance to compare the results with and without the influence of whatever it is you want to claim is causing the warming. The warming may be caused by X, but you'll never be able to prove it because you don't have a control that lacks X. You may think the warming is caused by Y, but you won't be able to prove that because you have a system with both X and Y.
Today we have people who claim X is the cause, who try shouting down and insulting those who think Y is the cause, thinking that the louder they shout and the more they complain about those "knuckle-dragger Y believers" or "those nutball propagandists with their Y theory" the more X will be proven correct.
Science is not just correlation, it is causation. "We gave 100 people pink pills with midichlorians in them and they lived." In climate science, this would prove that little pink pills with midichlorians caused those people to live. In order to reach that conclusion, you have to have 100 people who you didn't give the pills to and they had to die in order to come close to causation and not just correlation. That's why scientific drug studies have control groups who get "pink pills" without midichlorians along with the ones who get the midichlorianated pink pills.
So no, just because it "hasn't happened yet" doesn't mean it can be tested.
And now all we need is to get loud-mouth aggressive "scientists" to stop labeling everyone they don't agree with as "nutball propaganda". The scientific method doesn't have "keep shouting the other guy down until he goes away" as part of the process. The scientific method doesn't resort to name calling and insult as a means of proving the hypothesis.
When I read this summary, I thought "hurray, the antagonistic, dogma-preaching 'scientists' were finally going to be told that debate IS allowed and questioning the data and methods IS allowed and you don't get to question the ethics of the guy with the opposing ideas just because he disagrees with you." But no, it's the ones who need control that are complaining about being picked on. The poor dears, they behave boorishly in public and then cry about how boorishly they are being treated.
It pays to keep people uneducated: it's easier to scare, persuade, and misinform them.
And that's why every time you ask a strong AGW proponent to support his claims he resorts to name calling and saying things like "it's a fact" and "the debate is over". Never explain how you got to your conclusion, pretend the other guy is an idiot for asking, and you'll have "uneducated, scared, misinformed" people at your feet. And the scareder they are, the more money they'll keep pumping into research on how to "fix the crisis."
I know "climate scientists" who behave exactly that way, so pretending they don't exist won't earn you any points in this discussion.
A terrorist, intent on striking against us infidels, will shove explosives up his ass or have something surgically implanted around his body. Now, how will these things prevent that?
Sigh. You've missed the point of the scanners entirely.
Terrorists are just trying to compensate for their, ummm, lack of capacity shall we say? All the people with tiny dicks are obviously terrorists, even if they don't know it yet, and should be rounded up.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go visit the local car wash, it's time to wash and wax my unit.
Time to bring back point to point newsfeeds which limit access. Spam control by knowing exactly who you'll feed -- and who you cut off for spam.
Tried. Failed.
UsenetII was supposed to do exactly that. Limited feeds only to sites who promised to follow the rules. Rules. Protocols.
Leaked like a sieve. It may still be in existence, I don't know. It may be some vast underground secret society, but it never came close to replacing Usenet, which was the goal.
Do you have any facts or figures underpinning your statements ?
Yes.
In 1997 we had a 100Gb disk array holding the research data from our lab, all of which was available via gopher (and ftp, and the web). We moved to a 200Gb array shortly after, and then a 400Gb after that. And then 3Tb, around 2008.
Sometime around 2007 or 2008 the SunOS system that ran the gopher server died permanently and was replaced by a virtual linux server without gopher. Even without that server, I found not long ago that I was still creating.cap files -- which were gopher, as I recall, but maybe archie.
Quantitatively, online currently I have more than 15Gb of data for just 1997, all of which was gophered at the time. In 1998, another 18Gb.
So, I would say, had the gopher scraping been done in 1997 instead of 2007, the result would have been a lot more data. In fact, a few months earlier in 2007 and it might have BEEN a lot bigger.
We have plenty of good locations to put turbines, we just lack the political will to get it done.
Yeah, you just need to find the places where people don't mind the ugly behemoths rumbling all the time, high enough to be in a constant wind.
Sorta like the mountaintops that have become national parks and forestlands out here in the west. Cut down a bunch of those damn trees, move the hippie-treehuggers living in them to the city, and put up turbines. Or let the hippies live in the turbines in exchange for maintenance.
Look out, though. Those on the east coast are likely to start blowing the volcanic ash from Iceland back onto the US...
Then, the kid says: "OMG, mom! The Happy Meal comes with ultra-mega-mega man! Mom! Happy Meal! Happy Meal, Mom! MOM! I'LL DIE IF I DON'T GET THE HAPPY MEAL!!!! MMMMMMOMMMMMMMMMM!!"
"Ma! The happy meal comes with FRIES and COKE! I want fries! I want Fries. I don't like chicken, it's icky." But Billy, the chicken is fried in saturated fat and breaded with eggs and all kinds of stuff, and the juice is full of HFCS to make it sweet for you! "Ok, Ma, highly nutritious food it is."
I also don't necessarily think that Santa Clara's approach is the best way, but at least it's something.
So you'd be here defending them if they had decided to order all fast food restaurants to be shut down, because "it's something"? Why is "doing something" always better than doing nothing, when "something" includes micromanaging what people can and cannot buy? OMG, think of the children...
I believe the immigration law is a bad one. Mostly because of the potential it has to harm American Citizens of a certain ethnicity.
The Arizona law causes no harm to US citizens of any ethnicity.
The Arizona law allows police to verify residency status of non-citizens.
When I travel to other countries, I fully expect that I may be required to prove my right to be in that country. If I'm stopped by a German state police officer, I expect that I may be asked to show my passport. When I go to Brazil, I know that I am required to show my visa upon request. I don't know what it is about the US that makes some people think that it is wrong to ask non-citizens to show their visa or other entry documents as proof of authorization to be here.
If you ask for someone's ID and there is probable cause to suspect that the person is not a US citizen, then then next obvious step is to ask for the visa or other documents. That applies no matter what race or color or sexual orientation the person is, because I hate to tell you, there are a lot of non-US citizens who aren't hispanic.
We have laws about how one enters this country, and the Arizona law unfetters the police in their ability to enforce those existing laws without undue burden on anyone. It's an obvious and necessary reaction to the federal attitude of "don't ask don't tell" applied to immigration. The feds create laws and then don't bother enforcing them because it will cost the party in power votes in the next election.
...the restaurants are throwing the toys in there to help peddle a product which should probably be peddled on their merits of its nutrition.
Which is it? Do the kids have the final say, in which case "peddled on... its nutrition" is wasted energy, or do the parents?
"I want the happy meal! With the toy!" But Billy, the happy meal doesn't come with a toy anymore.
"What's that Mummy? No toy with the happy mean? Well then, I'll have the chef salad, low cal dressing, a bag of apple slices, and decaf iced tea no sugar, please."
If you hear that conversation happening in any car in the drive up, you are hallucinating.
For example, even when kids don't really have a say, they do.... She knows that, if she starts getting fidgety or rambunctious, things are going to turn out worse for her in the long run.
So this kid has a lot of say, doesn't she? The parents seem to have it all.
Who says you can't learn anything by surfing the web while at work? I did not know that and looked it up to confirm what you said.
Scratch another place not to go to.*
I can't tell for sure from this comment and your next one if you mean you aren't going to go there or are. Too many negatives.
Anyway, I've known about Chic-fil-a's background for a long time, and the only visible effect of their corporate policy is that they are all closed on Sunday. That makes me sad, because I'm usually near a store only on Sundays. That's all I've ever seen. Maybe the employees have different rules than under other companies.
I wish they were here. A simple chicken breast, a white bread bun, and a pickle. Truly, manna from Heaven. Maybe even better than the new Double Down from KFC. Yes, I think so.
Not only have autopilots worked incredibly well in the past, with a high success rate,
I was fascinated to learn that the Garmin G1000 glass-cockpit based C182 aircraft I was riding in (and will eventually have to pass a checkride in) has about fourteen different ways of immediately disabling the autopilot system. For a system that works so incredibly well, it seems odd there would be so many ways of killing it in an emergency.
The autopilots (servos and actuators) are often quite a bit stronger than the pilot himself, so any autopilot failure can easily overpower the pilot. For this to happen at low altitude (such as while on a CATIII approach) would be fatal.
Unfortunately, the idea that autopilots allow a pilot to use his mind to do something else is dangerous. "How long has that oil pressure reading been at 0?" is a lot more likely to happen if the pilot has spent the last half hour reading a novel instead of scanning the instruments while flying the plane. Yes, cruise flight is the most boring phase, but there's things for the pilot to do that doesn't prevent him from flying.
And of course, autopilots are why distracted pilots result in aircraft flying well past their destinations, like the one that flew out over the ocean instead of landing in Hawaii, or the well-known recent one over MN.
Ruling on precedent is the same as answering the question "why do we do this?" by saying "because we always have."
No, it's the same as saying "because the supreme court decided that way in a similar situation, and it's a real waste of time to try to reverse the supreme court with our own fanciful rulings". That doesn't seem to stop the Ninth Circuit, however.
It's also a way of adding inertia to the system, which in the long run is a good thing. It's very hard doing anything under a system that flip-flops every time a judge farts. Or in a country where three regions (circuits) operate under courts that rule one way and the rest under different rulings.
That's also why the inertia of having a bicameral legislature is worth the effort.
Furthermore, there is a big, fat difference in being paid out of a giant pool of money that goes for studying the mating habits of dung beetles and whether ice cores can be used to measure temperatures from 200000 years ago, and getting paid by a corporation whose bottom line depends on the outcome of the study. Equating the two is disingenuous.
No, there isn't that much difference. Either way, food gets put on the table and wives and children are clothed and housed. If global warming studies aren't important (because we aren't causing it and can't stop it, e.g.) then they don't get funded. If the dung beetle scientists can create a crisis over dung beetles ("they're critical for agriculture in this region and they're dissappearing! We have to find out WHY!") they get the money. The climatologist loses grant money and has to start teaching again. Or find a another line of work.
In other words, scientists in academia have just as much impetus to produce certain results as any industrial scientist does to opposite. By claiming that industrial scientist are likely to sell out, academics are admitting that they are just as likely to do so, to.
Is the research from big oil regarding climate change automatically wrong. No. But if it just so happens that the outcome of the study is the one that supports the companies bottom line, I'm going to look a) very carefully at how it arrived at that conclusion, and b) compare it with the conclusions from people who aren't affiliated with said company.
No, you are most likely to point a finger and claim "paid for", based on history of the pro-AGW activists. If you personally look at the data and evaluate it, that's good, but that's not the norm. I know. I work in "academia" and see how these people behave close up.
I am more often ashamed of them using my employer's name when they sign letters to the editor because of their uncivil and insulting behaviour than I am proud of them for showing their scientific abilities.
You think basically accusing the overwhelming majority of climatologists in the world of being part of a left-wing conspiracy to destroy the industrialized world is civil?
I didn't accuse anyone of any such thing. I said that IF YOU ARE GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY QUESTION SOMEONE'S ETHICS BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID BY COMPANY A, THEN YOU ARE ACCUSING YOURSELF OF THE SAME THING BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING PAID BY SOMEONE, TOO.
Every time an ivory-pure academic points his finger at a scientist who works for "big oil" and says "his opinion is bought and paid for", then he's just as likely to be guilty of the same thing.
By the way, the ONLY climatologist I know personally is firmly in the "nope" camp. Vast majority?
And yeah, I think it's legitimate to question the motives of a scientist whose in the employ of big oil companies when he declares that there's nothing wrong with throwing lots and lots of CO2 into the atmosphere,
And you must also think it's legitimate to misquote your opponents when you want question their ethics, because you're doing it now.
It doesn't really do climatologists much financial good whether climate change is real or not. Their scientists, and damned few people ever got rich being one.
Put the canard away. Climatologists have to fight with every other science for grant money. Grant money doesn't go where there isn't a need. You know that. You ought to know that. When there's a limited supply of money, the money goes where the crisis is. If global warming isn't a crisis, then someone else will have a greater need for money and they'll get the grants. Even if they don't get rich off a grant, it pays for their food and shelter and travel and papers and boosts their status.
I'm not saying the science is perfect, but when the vast majority of researchers in a field of research say "This is real", I tend to give it more weight than a few naysayers.
And when those who say "this is real" keep resorting to the kinds of personal attacks that I see them making, I assume they aren't real scientists and have nothing much of value to add to the discussion. "We are right because you work for big oil" isn't science, it a personal attack.
But, as with evolution, General Relativity and the like, it would be nice if the naysayers weren't either cranks or con artists.
And you've just proven my point. Anyone who doesn't agree is, according to you, a crook or con artist. Do you really not understand what science is supposed to be?
No, it doesn't. You are assuming that Group B didn't make any mistakes.
No, I'm assuming that when they fail at their first attempt, they discuss the problem with Group A and any mistake is discovered. If it is Group B's mistake, then they CAN duplicate the result (which is opposite what I said -- 'they cannot'). If it is Group A's mistake, then B cannot duplicate the original result, and neither can A.
In experiments as large as the LHC, how would propose that Group B "duplicates" the experiment?
Who said they were going to try? "If they can't duplicate the experiment and get the same result" means they can duplicate the experiment and don't get the same result, not that simply being unable to perform the experiment means the result is bogus.
Oh? Are you saying that other research done by individuals or groups can't come up with other theories?
I said no such thing. I was talking about people who AREN'T doing the research taking the data and scooping the original workers. You can do a lot of theorizing with other peoples' data, once they've taken it for you. Every experimentalist knows, taking the data is the hard part. Allowing theorists to scoop the experimentalists means you'll have a lot fewer experimentalists.
Which book would that be? Since you can't seem to be bothered to do a few seconds of research or remember the title, I'll try:
You didn't try very hard, did you? Google "consensus global warming book". First result: Amazon.com will sell you "Shattered Consensus", the book I was referring to. I assumed anyone interested enough would look it up themselves.
And I'm going to reply to myself just to clarify the point: every time an academic scientist points his finger at an industrial scientist and claims "bias" because of the money, he's got three fingers pointing back at himself, because HE gets paid from money that wouldn't be available unless global warming was a crisis that we must find the solution for.
It's time to stop claiming bias and look at the data. An industrial scientist's findings aren't automatically bogus based on the source of his paycheck any more than an academic's are.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't. His wave function ran away when I opened up the box. I've left out some potential wells as a trap, but I've caught nothing but a few stray electrons.
No, sir, "global warming" (and I assume you mean AGW) is either true or it isn't. There is no 50% or 80% with facts. The same for evolution (and I assume by that you mean "origin of life"). Either global warming is happening or it isn't. Either evolution is how life began or it isn't.
Now, you can say that global warming, as a whole, is caused 50% by AGW and 50% by natural causes, but that's not the same as saying global warming is 50% true. The only time percentages come into play is when defining how much you believe either theory is a fact, but that does not change for an instant whether it is truly a fact or not.
Sure, the numbers can sometimes be wrong, but they are not wrong 75% of the time. Not even 50% or 25%, but less.
That is also not true. It is easy for "the numbers" to be wrong 100% of the time. For example, if you mount your weather instruments in a black box with no vents, or near a blacktop parking lot, or close to a building's AC vents (the latter two are documented errors in NOAA installations) your measured temperatures are guaranteed to be wrong nearly 100% of the time, and you can't tell for sure when they are right, so you can trust them 0% of the time.
Several years ago, remote sensing scientists realized the equations they were using to correct satellite temperature readings were wrong. That means yes, indeed, up to the point they changed the equations, the numbers were wrong 100% of the time. Not the raw numbers, but the results of converting those units into temps. Close, maybe, but when we're talking tenths of a degree changes meaning AGW is or isn't true, still wrong.
What struck me in that statement is the "give BACK" part. You can't "give back" unless something has been given TO you. So, why did the FTC GIVE this outfit $1.08 MILLION in the first place? Or is the author not a native english speaker?
Is this really /., where nerds hang out? Everyone knows that a space blaster causes a complete disintegration of the object/person being blasted, no shrapnel.
Don't understand the news about AZ lately, eh?
It would be nice if diabetes was rare, but hardly so. If you do not make policies considering medical conditions, you wind up with stupid policies that kill people.
And here's an example of policies that take into account rare conditions: the ADA. I can count the number of people who need a ramp where I work on no hands. Yet ramps are mandatory. Just in case.
So screw any diabetics who carry a few hard candies in case they go hypoglycemic, I guess.
Here's a novel concept. Instead of banning hard candies, ban making messes and punish those who do. I can't recall the last time a Jolly Rancher climbed out of my pocket and made a mess somewhere -- even when I've forgotten to take him out of my pocket before I do the laundry. Kinda nice that way, sugar dissolves in hot water pretty well, rinses right way and all you have is a small wrapper left over.
My copy of vim does. It's called "the right edge of the window". That's why running an xterm in 80x24 is good.
My main peeve with vim is when it goes into "recording mode" or whatever that nonsense is, when I try to ":q" and hit something by mistake and the screen splits. I still don't know what I did wrong. And that vim always wants to go back to the last place in the file you edited, even if you edited the file ten years ago and really want to start at the top. The only way I found around that one is to make the .viminfo file chmod 000 so it can't save status.
You are confusing "nice, pretty plots in a journal article" with "data".
Data is what one starts with. Journals do not want you to publish "data", it's boring and needs to be analyzed and worked up. Journals want procedures and results.
Were journals to be filled with data, they'd be 1) huge, 2) even more expensive than they are now, and 3) boring. Were journals to publish data along with the manuscript, it would not have taken years and dumb luck to catch the "super scientist" who was duplicating his data and plots for years. No, I don't remember his name, and I don't remember enough of the details to google it.
And why should we trust this data to armchair scientists to begin with?
What is there not to trust? You do realize, I hope, that a large number of "climate scientists" are "armchair" in the sense they aren't trained as climate scientists to start with. And that a large amount of astronomical data comes from "armchair scientists". Science is science. You don't need a Ph.D to be a scientist.
Does this person seriously believe every scientist was keeping AGW data in the dark?
Do you seriously believe that every scientist is involved in AGW research so every scientist has AGW data?
The guy who created the hockey stick brouhaha certainly did keep the data "in the dark", in that he did not release it to other scientists.
Why is crap like this modded up?
Because it isn't "crap", and maybe the moderators who modded it up are getting sick and tired of the name calling and insulting attitude of those who push AGW down the rest of our throats. Just a thought, Anonymous Coward.
That's a flaw in the logic that puts the whole issue into the political arena to start with.
There is no control group, no chance to compare the results with and without the influence of whatever it is you want to claim is causing the warming. The warming may be caused by X, but you'll never be able to prove it because you don't have a control that lacks X. You may think the warming is caused by Y, but you won't be able to prove that because you have a system with both X and Y.
Today we have people who claim X is the cause, who try shouting down and insulting those who think Y is the cause, thinking that the louder they shout and the more they complain about those "knuckle-dragger Y believers" or "those nutball propagandists with their Y theory" the more X will be proven correct.
Science is not just correlation, it is causation. "We gave 100 people pink pills with midichlorians in them and they lived." In climate science, this would prove that little pink pills with midichlorians caused those people to live. In order to reach that conclusion, you have to have 100 people who you didn't give the pills to and they had to die in order to come close to causation and not just correlation. That's why scientific drug studies have control groups who get "pink pills" without midichlorians along with the ones who get the midichlorianated pink pills.
So no, just because it "hasn't happened yet" doesn't mean it can be tested.
When I read this summary, I thought "hurray, the antagonistic, dogma-preaching 'scientists' were finally going to be told that debate IS allowed and questioning the data and methods IS allowed and you don't get to question the ethics of the guy with the opposing ideas just because he disagrees with you." But no, it's the ones who need control that are complaining about being picked on. The poor dears, they behave boorishly in public and then cry about how boorishly they are being treated.
It pays to keep people uneducated: it's easier to scare, persuade, and misinform them.
And that's why every time you ask a strong AGW proponent to support his claims he resorts to name calling and saying things like "it's a fact" and "the debate is over". Never explain how you got to your conclusion, pretend the other guy is an idiot for asking, and you'll have "uneducated, scared, misinformed" people at your feet. And the scareder they are, the more money they'll keep pumping into research on how to "fix the crisis."
I know "climate scientists" who behave exactly that way, so pretending they don't exist won't earn you any points in this discussion.
Sigh. You've missed the point of the scanners entirely.
Terrorists are just trying to compensate for their, ummm, lack of capacity shall we say? All the people with tiny dicks are obviously terrorists, even if they don't know it yet, and should be rounded up.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go visit the local car wash, it's time to wash and wax my unit.
Tried. Failed.
UsenetII was supposed to do exactly that. Limited feeds only to sites who promised to follow the rules. Rules. Protocols.
Leaked like a sieve. It may still be in existence, I don't know. It may be some vast underground secret society, but it never came close to replacing Usenet, which was the goal.
Yes.
In 1997 we had a 100Gb disk array holding the research data from our lab, all of which was available via gopher (and ftp, and the web). We moved to a 200Gb array shortly after, and then a 400Gb after that. And then 3Tb, around 2008.
Sometime around 2007 or 2008 the SunOS system that ran the gopher server died permanently and was replaced by a virtual linux server without gopher. Even without that server, I found not long ago that I was still creating .cap files -- which were gopher, as I recall, but maybe archie.
Quantitatively, online currently I have more than 15Gb of data for just 1997, all of which was gophered at the time. In 1998, another 18Gb.
So, I would say, had the gopher scraping been done in 1997 instead of 2007, the result would have been a lot more data. In fact, a few months earlier in 2007 and it might have BEEN a lot bigger.
Yeah, you just need to find the places where people don't mind the ugly behemoths rumbling all the time, high enough to be in a constant wind.
Sorta like the mountaintops that have become national parks and forestlands out here in the west. Cut down a bunch of those damn trees, move the hippie-treehuggers living in them to the city, and put up turbines. Or let the hippies live in the turbines in exchange for maintenance.
Look out, though. Those on the east coast are likely to start blowing the volcanic ash from Iceland back onto the US...
"Ma! The happy meal comes with FRIES and COKE! I want fries! I want Fries. I don't like chicken, it's icky." But Billy, the chicken is fried in saturated fat and breaded with eggs and all kinds of stuff, and the juice is full of HFCS to make it sweet for you! "Ok, Ma, highly nutritious food it is."
I also don't necessarily think that Santa Clara's approach is the best way, but at least it's something.
So you'd be here defending them if they had decided to order all fast food restaurants to be shut down, because "it's something"? Why is "doing something" always better than doing nothing, when "something" includes micromanaging what people can and cannot buy? OMG, think of the children...
The Arizona law causes no harm to US citizens of any ethnicity.
The Arizona law allows police to verify residency status of non-citizens.
When I travel to other countries, I fully expect that I may be required to prove my right to be in that country. If I'm stopped by a German state police officer, I expect that I may be asked to show my passport. When I go to Brazil, I know that I am required to show my visa upon request. I don't know what it is about the US that makes some people think that it is wrong to ask non-citizens to show their visa or other entry documents as proof of authorization to be here.
If you ask for someone's ID and there is probable cause to suspect that the person is not a US citizen, then then next obvious step is to ask for the visa or other documents. That applies no matter what race or color or sexual orientation the person is, because I hate to tell you, there are a lot of non-US citizens who aren't hispanic.
We have laws about how one enters this country, and the Arizona law unfetters the police in their ability to enforce those existing laws without undue burden on anyone. It's an obvious and necessary reaction to the federal attitude of "don't ask don't tell" applied to immigration. The feds create laws and then don't bother enforcing them because it will cost the party in power votes in the next election.
Which is it? Do the kids have the final say, in which case "peddled on ... its nutrition" is wasted energy, or do the parents?
"I want the happy meal! With the toy!" But Billy, the happy meal doesn't come with a toy anymore. "What's that Mummy? No toy with the happy mean? Well then, I'll have the chef salad, low cal dressing, a bag of apple slices, and decaf iced tea no sugar, please."
If you hear that conversation happening in any car in the drive up, you are hallucinating.
For example, even when kids don't really have a say, they do. ... She knows that, if she starts getting fidgety or rambunctious, things are going to turn out worse for her in the long run.
So this kid has a lot of say, doesn't she? The parents seem to have it all.
I can't tell for sure from this comment and your next one if you mean you aren't going to go there or are. Too many negatives.
Anyway, I've known about Chic-fil-a's background for a long time, and the only visible effect of their corporate policy is that they are all closed on Sunday. That makes me sad, because I'm usually near a store only on Sundays. That's all I've ever seen. Maybe the employees have different rules than under other companies.
I wish they were here. A simple chicken breast, a white bread bun, and a pickle. Truly, manna from Heaven. Maybe even better than the new Double Down from KFC. Yes, I think so.
I was fascinated to learn that the Garmin G1000 glass-cockpit based C182 aircraft I was riding in (and will eventually have to pass a checkride in) has about fourteen different ways of immediately disabling the autopilot system. For a system that works so incredibly well, it seems odd there would be so many ways of killing it in an emergency.
The autopilots (servos and actuators) are often quite a bit stronger than the pilot himself, so any autopilot failure can easily overpower the pilot. For this to happen at low altitude (such as while on a CATIII approach) would be fatal.
Unfortunately, the idea that autopilots allow a pilot to use his mind to do something else is dangerous. "How long has that oil pressure reading been at 0?" is a lot more likely to happen if the pilot has spent the last half hour reading a novel instead of scanning the instruments while flying the plane. Yes, cruise flight is the most boring phase, but there's things for the pilot to do that doesn't prevent him from flying.
And of course, autopilots are why distracted pilots result in aircraft flying well past their destinations, like the one that flew out over the ocean instead of landing in Hawaii, or the well-known recent one over MN.
No, it's the same as saying "because the supreme court decided that way in a similar situation, and it's a real waste of time to try to reverse the supreme court with our own fanciful rulings". That doesn't seem to stop the Ninth Circuit, however.
It's also a way of adding inertia to the system, which in the long run is a good thing. It's very hard doing anything under a system that flip-flops every time a judge farts. Or in a country where three regions (circuits) operate under courts that rule one way and the rest under different rulings.
That's also why the inertia of having a bicameral legislature is worth the effort.
No, there isn't that much difference. Either way, food gets put on the table and wives and children are clothed and housed. If global warming studies aren't important (because we aren't causing it and can't stop it, e.g.) then they don't get funded. If the dung beetle scientists can create a crisis over dung beetles ("they're critical for agriculture in this region and they're dissappearing! We have to find out WHY!") they get the money. The climatologist loses grant money and has to start teaching again. Or find a another line of work.
In other words, scientists in academia have just as much impetus to produce certain results as any industrial scientist does to opposite. By claiming that industrial scientist are likely to sell out, academics are admitting that they are just as likely to do so, to.
Is the research from big oil regarding climate change automatically wrong. No. But if it just so happens that the outcome of the study is the one that supports the companies bottom line, I'm going to look a) very carefully at how it arrived at that conclusion, and b) compare it with the conclusions from people who aren't affiliated with said company.
No, you are most likely to point a finger and claim "paid for", based on history of the pro-AGW activists. If you personally look at the data and evaluate it, that's good, but that's not the norm. I know. I work in "academia" and see how these people behave close up. I am more often ashamed of them using my employer's name when they sign letters to the editor because of their uncivil and insulting behaviour than I am proud of them for showing their scientific abilities.
I didn't accuse anyone of any such thing. I said that IF YOU ARE GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY QUESTION SOMEONE'S ETHICS BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID BY COMPANY A, THEN YOU ARE ACCUSING YOURSELF OF THE SAME THING BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING PAID BY SOMEONE, TOO.
Every time an ivory-pure academic points his finger at a scientist who works for "big oil" and says "his opinion is bought and paid for", then he's just as likely to be guilty of the same thing.
By the way, the ONLY climatologist I know personally is firmly in the "nope" camp. Vast majority?
And yeah, I think it's legitimate to question the motives of a scientist whose in the employ of big oil companies when he declares that there's nothing wrong with throwing lots and lots of CO2 into the atmosphere,
And you must also think it's legitimate to misquote your opponents when you want question their ethics, because you're doing it now.
It doesn't really do climatologists much financial good whether climate change is real or not. Their scientists, and damned few people ever got rich being one.
Put the canard away. Climatologists have to fight with every other science for grant money. Grant money doesn't go where there isn't a need. You know that. You ought to know that. When there's a limited supply of money, the money goes where the crisis is. If global warming isn't a crisis, then someone else will have a greater need for money and they'll get the grants. Even if they don't get rich off a grant, it pays for their food and shelter and travel and papers and boosts their status.
I'm not saying the science is perfect, but when the vast majority of researchers in a field of research say "This is real", I tend to give it more weight than a few naysayers.
And when those who say "this is real" keep resorting to the kinds of personal attacks that I see them making, I assume they aren't real scientists and have nothing much of value to add to the discussion. "We are right because you work for big oil" isn't science, it a personal attack.
But, as with evolution, General Relativity and the like, it would be nice if the naysayers weren't either cranks or con artists.
And you've just proven my point. Anyone who doesn't agree is, according to you, a crook or con artist. Do you really not understand what science is supposed to be?
No, I'm assuming that when they fail at their first attempt, they discuss the problem with Group A and any mistake is discovered. If it is Group B's mistake, then they CAN duplicate the result (which is opposite what I said -- 'they cannot'). If it is Group A's mistake, then B cannot duplicate the original result, and neither can A.
In experiments as large as the LHC, how would propose that Group B "duplicates" the experiment?
Who said they were going to try? "If they can't duplicate the experiment and get the same result" means they can duplicate the experiment and don't get the same result, not that simply being unable to perform the experiment means the result is bogus.
Oh? Are you saying that other research done by individuals or groups can't come up with other theories?
I said no such thing. I was talking about people who AREN'T doing the research taking the data and scooping the original workers. You can do a lot of theorizing with other peoples' data, once they've taken it for you. Every experimentalist knows, taking the data is the hard part. Allowing theorists to scoop the experimentalists means you'll have a lot fewer experimentalists.
Which book would that be? Since you can't seem to be bothered to do a few seconds of research or remember the title, I'll try:
You didn't try very hard, did you? Google "consensus global warming book". First result: Amazon.com will sell you "Shattered Consensus", the book I was referring to. I assumed anyone interested enough would look it up themselves.
It's time to stop claiming bias and look at the data. An industrial scientist's findings aren't automatically bogus based on the source of his paycheck any more than an academic's are.