No, we genuinely only use it when its accuracy is validated by comparison to other sources, and we genuinely only reject it when its accuracy is invalidated by other sources.
In general, including when using direct measurements, this is called "calibration". Using measurements from when your measuring device was known to be calibrated, and rejecting measurements from when your measuring device was known to be uncalibrated, is called "proper science".
Rejecting this methodology demonstrates quite clearly who it is who wants to decide when to use data based on when it supports the arguments they desire. Hint: I'm replying to them.
I mean, do all these people who are hanging on this word as proof that AGW is all a deliberate lie also think that the Late Show with David Lettermen used to feature a segment involving dumb pets engaging in acts of deceit?! "Boopsi isn't really doing backflips! It's a sham; they tell you right in the name!" Sadly this kind of argumentation, where you take a word with several meanings and then pretend it has only one possible meaning, is quite common around here.
I think another post said it well: In ten years of emails, I'd expect a lot more incriminating evidence than a few trite phrases if this was all a global conspiracy. Hell, I do not think AGW is some kind of lie or conspiracy, yet I was still expecting to see more juicy and scandalous bits. After all, Stephen J Gould found substantial evidence of errors in studies consistently favoring the biases of the researchers even in cases where he had no doubt that the research was conducted with all earnestness and sincerity -- even in his own research! Add in the fact of human nature that not all scientists are sincere, and I was honestly quite credulous when people were initially saying there were "bombshells" in the leaked emails.
Instead, this "ooh he said 'tricked' and 'hid'! I knew it!" nonsense is just pathetic. Seriously, I expected more.
Yeah, I'm sure climbers and bungee jumpers never thought of that.
A safety rope DOESN'T stop you instantly.
But in Hollywood they do. And don't just think ropes, think Spiderman plucking you from the air as you fall (thus not only causing an immediate upward acceleration to break your fall, but a sideways one so you swing away).
Even worse is when the rope instantly stops the person just before they hit the ground, but the rope isn't attached to a harness but around their ankle (so the near-hit is made even more dramatic by it being their *head* that is inches above the ground). With no ankle damage/amputation. And when someone falls off a tall object with a chain wrapped around their neck, they die of suffocation not a broken neck or decapitation (a short fall with a chain could result in suffocation, but I'm talking 30+ feet).
That's Hollywood physics.
A good safety rope is designed to stretch and absorb much of the energy of your fall, and stop your fall over a comparatively long period of time.
More to the point, to be a safety rope in situations where falling is possible, it has to be a dynamic line. Static lines are very dangerous even in short falls.
You're right, I understated the degree to which aspects of the vehicle design are proprietary (and not just proprietary but unknown), and this isn't just from the computers.
However my main point is that "open" cars are not a new concept whatsoever, and the legal/safety/liability ramifications are already established. You might not be able to replace the cylinder in your recent Accord, but a buddy of mine is doing exactly what I talked about and rebuilding an Alpha Romeo engine from scratch.
So yes vehicles have been trending towards being less "open", but that doesn't mean reversing this trend is actually some brand new concept.
Indeed, what happens now, as in today, when scenarios like that one occur? And there's your answer.
I realize you missed the extremely subtle point my post was hinting at, so let me repeat it: 3rd-party and end-user modifications are today possible, legal, and fairly common.
This simple scenario raises quite a few issues that need to be dealt with before we can really start looking into using open hardware.
See, there we go. There can be no issue which needs to be dealt with before we can have open hardware, because the hardware is already open. These issues are already being dealt with successfully. So, no.
Cars have been "open" by default for the majority of their existence -- they may not hand you schematics, but all the workings of the car were out in the open for any mechanic to see and generally well understood. Mechanics could replace or rebuild just about any part of the car including replacing the engine with a from-scratch rebuild, and this behavior was not only generally tolerated but often encouraged by the auto makers. It's only in relatively recent times with the advent of computer control that the ability to hide the workings of the vehicle even became possible, and even more recently that these computers were used to try to create a "proprietary" environment where you couldn't have any random mechanic fix your car (and this attempt has largely failed).
Safety and liability are no more an issue than it was with hot rods and such back in the day. It's simple: Your vehicle, modified or no, has to comply with state and federal laws regarding road worthiness, and pass any inspections your state might have. If your car fails because of the original manufacturer's design, then it's their fault. If it fails because of a 3rd party modification, that's their fault. If it fails because of your tinkering in your garage, that's your fault. Grey areas are hammered out in the courts, like they always have been.
Are you absolutely sure that "Lepton flavor violation" isn't some sort of horribly translated import-only hentai?
That's exactly what it is, and the LHC experiment is to see if a beam of 7 TeV protons is sufficient to wipe out the memory of having seen it. So far all experiments at the CERN Pub have shown no results.
Presumably the foam would be able to decelerate your body over a long enough distance to keep you from being seriously injured. The Iron Man suit simply doesn't have enough room to allow that even with the Stark Industries super-shock-absorbing padding.
Of course in the context of the Iron Man movie, Tony Stark got the mandatory supernatural-durability upgrade that all heroes get even if they supposedly have no supernatural abilities. He survived crashing into the desert in his original suit which had zero padding and would have actually made the landing far more deadly, and then survived rocketing full speed and spine-first into the ceiling.
What makes you think that increasing temperatures will help to reverse desertification?
Same thing that makes him think the solar wind is a current caused by the sun's electric field... abject ignorance, combined with a willingness to believe anything so long as it purports to contradict what the Scientific Clergy believe.
They used "barrier" to describe a limit that was based on "we didn't spend the money to build a powerful enough accelerator to achieve 1 TeV per beam until just now." That's not a barrier, it's a record.
A barrier is located where your marginal rate of increase exhibits a local minimum.
That's the literal definition. However in a figurative sense, you can describe 1 TeV as a psychological barrier. It's like when the 1 GHz "barrier" was crossed in processors. It took an advance in technology to cross (just like with the LHC, there's more to it than just spending money), but not in a way notably different than the previous or subsequent small steps. Yet in the process of approaching and then exceeding a threshold value that is symbolically meaningful to humans, it feels as though a barrier has been crossed.
Figuratively of course.
Do you have a reason to think they meant to use the word in a strictly literally sense "in this case"? Or is the fact that the nit goes away and the sentence makes perfect sense if you take it to mean a figurative mental barrier just not sufficient evidence for you?
(a little tangent here - I'm surprised IT departments have not done this yet for Admins and programmers).
They pretty much do, by only drug testing prior to employment, encouraging or outright demanding their employees work extreme hours, and turning a blind eye to whatever the employee may choose to do in order to comply. Granted, coke and meth are hardly "without side effect", but IT departments hardly have the resources of the Air Force to create experimental drugs, and they let you get the job done for a while at least, with the plus side that the employer can't and thus doesn't have to provide them.
Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.
Though for completeness sake, it should be mentioned that those studies showed that correlation by asking the participants how much they had overestimated their own abilities.
Yeah, well, whatever mysterious force terminated all universes in which the power generator didn't fail, forgot about the backup generator! This was nothing but the tiniest of hiccups.
Do you have a pop psychology book and a secret black box with some electrodes I could tape to my skin?
I'm normally not supposed to answer questions like this until you pay the initial $5000 fee, but the answers respectively are "no, psychology is a mole-men conspiracy" and "yes, but the electrodes don't go on your skin, and you need lube not tape".
You don't count being held in a compound surrounded by razor wire and forced to work 16-24 hours a day at age 8 as "involuntary servitude"?
No, obviously they do count that as involuntary, since the point was to contradict a post claiming this wasn't slavery due to him being paid. In other words, they are saying he was a slave.
This post has been brought to you by the Center For Explaining the Obvious to the Reading Comprehension Impaired, a tax-exempt religious charity organization that you can join and learn more about for the low low cost of $5000.
Or they were replying to your comment at large, indicating either starting, finishing, or publishing the work. In any case, they were talking about historical trends in colliders, while the statement about the LHC is specific to the plans for the LHC. So "Either you are wrong or they are lying" is not a necessary implication (both statements can in fact be true), not to mention a hasty leap to conclusions.
You say you agree that science is not about instant gratification, but you sure don't seem to understand what it is that you're agreeing with.
If the RC article is right, why would whoever wrote that email pick such an unclear phrasing?
Because it wasn't unclear to the target audience of the e-mail. The e-mail was not written assuming its verbiage would be picked apart for signs of a conspiracy.
When applying Occam's Razor, you don't pull short on your cut.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we genuinely only use it when its accuracy is validated by comparison to other sources, and we genuinely only reject it when its accuracy is invalidated by other sources.
In general, including when using direct measurements, this is called "calibration". Using measurements from when your measuring device was known to be calibrated, and rejecting measurements from when your measuring device was known to be uncalibrated, is called "proper science".
Rejecting this methodology demonstrates quite clearly who it is who wants to decide when to use data based on when it supports the arguments they desire. Hint: I'm replying to them.
1. "Trick" is frequently used in scientific context to mean "clever method" or "correction".
"Trick" is used to mean "clever method" in many contexts because that's one of the common definitions of the word!
I mean, do all these people who are hanging on this word as proof that AGW is all a deliberate lie also think that the Late Show with David Lettermen used to feature a segment involving dumb pets engaging in acts of deceit?! "Boopsi isn't really doing backflips! It's a sham; they tell you right in the name!" Sadly this kind of argumentation, where you take a word with several meanings and then pretend it has only one possible meaning, is quite common around here.
I think another post said it well: In ten years of emails, I'd expect a lot more incriminating evidence than a few trite phrases if this was all a global conspiracy. Hell, I do not think AGW is some kind of lie or conspiracy, yet I was still expecting to see more juicy and scandalous bits. After all, Stephen J Gould found substantial evidence of errors in studies consistently favoring the biases of the researchers even in cases where he had no doubt that the research was conducted with all earnestness and sincerity -- even in his own research! Add in the fact of human nature that not all scientists are sincere, and I was honestly quite credulous when people were initially saying there were "bombshells" in the leaked emails.
Instead, this "ooh he said 'tricked' and 'hid'! I knew it!" nonsense is just pathetic. Seriously, I expected more.
Yeah, I'm sure climbers and bungee jumpers never thought of that.
A safety rope DOESN'T stop you instantly.
But in Hollywood they do. And don't just think ropes, think Spiderman plucking you from the air as you fall (thus not only causing an immediate upward acceleration to break your fall, but a sideways one so you swing away).
Even worse is when the rope instantly stops the person just before they hit the ground, but the rope isn't attached to a harness but around their ankle (so the near-hit is made even more dramatic by it being their *head* that is inches above the ground). With no ankle damage/amputation. And when someone falls off a tall object with a chain wrapped around their neck, they die of suffocation not a broken neck or decapitation (a short fall with a chain could result in suffocation, but I'm talking 30+ feet).
That's Hollywood physics.
A good safety rope is designed to stretch and absorb much of the energy of your fall, and stop your fall over a comparatively long period of time.
More to the point, to be a safety rope in situations where falling is possible, it has to be a dynamic line. Static lines are very dangerous even in short falls.
"must be roughly spherical. "
Or spinning.
Or high enough in the atmosphere that the "different angles" weren't actually that different.
Since it also would have to be that high to catch the light of the sun, this seems likely.
You're right, I understated the degree to which aspects of the vehicle design are proprietary (and not just proprietary but unknown), and this isn't just from the computers.
However my main point is that "open" cars are not a new concept whatsoever, and the legal/safety/liability ramifications are already established. You might not be able to replace the cylinder in your recent Accord, but a buddy of mine is doing exactly what I talked about and rebuilding an Alpha Romeo engine from scratch.
So yes vehicles have been trending towards being less "open", but that doesn't mean reversing this trend is actually some brand new concept.
What happens now?
Indeed, what happens now, as in today, when scenarios like that one occur? And there's your answer.
I realize you missed the extremely subtle point my post was hinting at, so let me repeat it: 3rd-party and end-user modifications are today possible, legal, and fairly common.
This simple scenario raises quite a few issues that need to be dealt with before we can really start looking into using open hardware.
See, there we go. There can be no issue which needs to be dealt with before we can have open hardware, because the hardware is already open. These issues are already being dealt with successfully. So, no.
Cars have been "open" by default for the majority of their existence -- they may not hand you schematics, but all the workings of the car were out in the open for any mechanic to see and generally well understood. Mechanics could replace or rebuild just about any part of the car including replacing the engine with a from-scratch rebuild, and this behavior was not only generally tolerated but often encouraged by the auto makers. It's only in relatively recent times with the advent of computer control that the ability to hide the workings of the vehicle even became possible, and even more recently that these computers were used to try to create a "proprietary" environment where you couldn't have any random mechanic fix your car (and this attempt has largely failed).
Safety and liability are no more an issue than it was with hot rods and such back in the day. It's simple: Your vehicle, modified or no, has to comply with state and federal laws regarding road worthiness, and pass any inspections your state might have. If your car fails because of the original manufacturer's design, then it's their fault. If it fails because of a 3rd party modification, that's their fault. If it fails because of your tinkering in your garage, that's your fault. Grey areas are hammered out in the courts, like they always have been.
Are you absolutely sure that "Lepton flavor violation" isn't some sort of horribly translated import-only hentai?
That's exactly what it is, and the LHC experiment is to see if a beam of 7 TeV protons is sufficient to wipe out the memory of having seen it. So far all experiments at the CERN Pub have shown no results.
Presumably the foam would be able to decelerate your body over a long enough distance to keep you from being seriously injured. The Iron Man suit simply doesn't have enough room to allow that even with the Stark Industries super-shock-absorbing padding.
Of course in the context of the Iron Man movie, Tony Stark got the mandatory supernatural-durability upgrade that all heroes get even if they supposedly have no supernatural abilities. He survived crashing into the desert in his original suit which had zero padding and would have actually made the landing far more deadly, and then survived rocketing full speed and spine-first into the ceiling.
What makes you think that increasing temperatures will help to reverse desertification?
Same thing that makes him think the solar wind is a current caused by the sun's electric field... abject ignorance, combined with a willingness to believe anything so long as it purports to contradict what the Scientific Clergy believe.
They used "barrier" to describe a limit that was based on "we didn't spend the money to build a powerful enough accelerator to achieve 1 TeV per beam until just now." That's not a barrier, it's a record.
A barrier is located where your marginal rate of increase exhibits a local minimum.
That's the literal definition. However in a figurative sense, you can describe 1 TeV as a psychological barrier. It's like when the 1 GHz "barrier" was crossed in processors. It took an advance in technology to cross (just like with the LHC, there's more to it than just spending money), but not in a way notably different than the previous or subsequent small steps. Yet in the process of approaching and then exceeding a threshold value that is symbolically meaningful to humans, it feels as though a barrier has been crossed.
Figuratively of course.
Do you have a reason to think they meant to use the word in a strictly literally sense "in this case"? Or is the fact that the nit goes away and the sentence makes perfect sense if you take it to mean a figurative mental barrier just not sufficient evidence for you?
Here's a nit: Words are often used figuratively.
(a little tangent here - I'm surprised IT departments have not done this yet for Admins and programmers).
They pretty much do, by only drug testing prior to employment, encouraging or outright demanding their employees work extreme hours, and turning a blind eye to whatever the employee may choose to do in order to comply. Granted, coke and meth are hardly "without side effect", but IT departments hardly have the resources of the Air Force to create experimental drugs, and they let you get the job done for a while at least, with the plus side that the employer can't and thus doesn't have to provide them.
In the past, I've made birthday "cards" with PICs and monochrome LCDs. Now that is geeky.
Bah! Neither of you are true geeks, since you have friends/loved ones to send cards to.
Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.
Though for completeness sake, it should be mentioned that those studies showed that correlation by asking the participants how much they had overestimated their own abilities.
it only works in 32-bit or greater ISAs.
JMP 0X0BADCODE
or
JMP 0xBAADCODE
if your programmers are sheeple.
That was also the time when Greenland was a green land
LOL. And another hapless fool falls victim to the greatest false advertising scam in history .
Do you think that at the same period in history, Iceland was an ice land?
LOL.
is it possible someone has been sabotaging it from the inside or even outside?
If they are, they are the worst saboteurs ever. This is about the equivalent of sabotaging the NSA's wiretapping by pulling the fire alarm.
Yeah, well, whatever mysterious force terminated all universes in which the power generator didn't fail, forgot about the backup generator! This was nothing but the tiniest of hiccups.
Do you have a pop psychology book and a secret black box with some electrodes I could tape to my skin?
I'm normally not supposed to answer questions like this until you pay the initial $5000 fee, but the answers respectively are "no, psychology is a mole-men conspiracy" and "yes, but the electrodes don't go on your skin, and you need lube not tape".
You don't count being held in a compound surrounded by razor wire and forced to work 16-24 hours a day at age 8 as "involuntary servitude"?
No, obviously they do count that as involuntary, since the point was to contradict a post claiming this wasn't slavery due to him being paid. In other words, they are saying he was a slave.
This post has been brought to you by the Center For Explaining the Obvious to the Reading Comprehension Impaired, a tax-exempt religious charity organization that you can join and learn more about for the low low cost of $5000.
Trillion is several orders of magnitude more
Not in American English it isn't... Terra = Trillion = 10^9.
The same time it always does: When the lead physicist steps into the acceleration chamber... and vanishes.
There's a time lock on the door. It's... it's a safety feature...
Or they were replying to your comment at large, indicating either starting, finishing, or publishing the work. In any case, they were talking about historical trends in colliders, while the statement about the LHC is specific to the plans for the LHC. So "Either you are wrong or they are lying" is not a necessary implication (both statements can in fact be true), not to mention a hasty leap to conclusions.
You say you agree that science is not about instant gratification, but you sure don't seem to understand what it is that you're agreeing with.
If the RC article is right, why would whoever wrote that email pick such an unclear phrasing?
Because it wasn't unclear to the target audience of the e-mail. The e-mail was not written assuming its verbiage would be picked apart for signs of a conspiracy.
When applying Occam's Razor, you don't pull short on your cut.