Well, looking up the thread, you are an expert in talking completely past a person, I'll give you that.
I mention that there is no such thing as a model which supports anti-AGW, and you retort that the "experts" are producing biased models. I used my highly advanced deductive reasoning to assume that you meant that the models not supporting the anti-AGW argument, which would of course be all of them. Obviously you only meant SOME of them. How silly of me. Please accept my most sincere apologies and may the Festivus spirit fill you.
So the climate scientists' responses to the poor temperature prediction has been to improve the models and look for why there is a discrepancy. That is scientific. The unscientific thing to do is mine Google for items which reinforce your opinion on the matter.
Why are the experts continuing to come up with bad, biased models and continue to make predictions based on those bad, biased models?
I have a very hard time accepting your characterization of every single model ever created as "bad", with no counter-examples of a "good" model. How can you assess the non-expert's criticism if there is no way to test their assertions?
But you nailed it with "non-experts". Non-expert's opinions are generally not worth as much as an expert's opinion. There are many, many non-experts latched onto this field for ideological reasons. It's like evolution.
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
But surely, then, you remember that science doesn't stop at the question. You need to actually do research. In climate science, that means collecting data and building a model. I think it is noteworthy that no AGW opponent has built a model.
You can call them anything you want, but they are following the scientific method to the extent allowed by the nature of an observational science. They self-identify as scientists. AGW opponents do not have a single model that they can point to, and as far as I know, no prominent AGW opponent is working on a model. They can self-identify as scientists if they want, but they certainly aren't sticking to "their" philosophy.
Thanks for the high-res version. Is there some technical reason that they omit the ocean data? I would think the oceans have quite a bit of photosynthetic activity!
Thanks, I did not know that. But to be clear, this does not create junction points... this is the "official" method that I reference. I don't want people cutting-and-pasting Users:)
I'm thinking (hoping?) that normal disk caching would take care of stuff like that. Honestly, I'd just use the supported method unless your SSD was very, very tiny. I use the junction point method because I wipe out the C: drive from time to time to avoid Windows cruft. Every so often I apply Windows updates and re-baseline.
Windows is a pain in the ass, but with some determination you can set everything up on the SSD and then use "junction points" from the rescue disk to connect to a Users directory on a big spinning drive. If you are willing to get about 90% of the way there with just conventional tools, you can just move the "My Documents, My Music, etc." type directories by right-clicking on them, selecting Properties, and then going to the Location tab. From there you can move them to the spinning disk. This is fine if you only have a few users on the PC, but can get very tedious with multiple users.
Um, you have it backwards. Assad was the first Arab to sign a peace deal with Israel, and he was such a reliable ally of the US that he was allowed to build M1A1 tanks domestically. Gaddafi was a state sponsor of terrorism who was a total belligerent until Reagan ordered a bombing run.
But it matters not. When the revolution comes, we shall flee to the safe haven of Russia. Brother Putin will let us stay at his airport. I plan on taking a nuclear sub with me. It will be awkward to store at the airport, but the plan must be held.
Ethics is an interesting discussion. The road is a finite resource for which demand exceeds supply. As a result, there is already rationing taking place - in the form of waits times to use the road: congestion. This is, on the surface, very "fair" and "egalitarian", but also very wasteful of time, gasoline, pollution, and wear-and-tear on equipment.
On the other hand, a system that lets poor people get where they want to go, albeit by bus, faster and more cheaply than before also could be deemed "fair". You'd have only affluent people driving, so that would create a societal divide.
If I were dictator, I'd toll the roads as high as need be until traffic levels come down to designed capacity. If there is some excess cash after paying for maintenance, this would subsidize a bus route along the same now-free-flowing highway(s). The bus would actually be attractive, since it would be cheap and fast instead of simply stuck in traffic.
Then I'd jail or execute my political rivals and invade Canada.
I agree that there probably is some role for intellectual property protections, but I get mad when people start to feel entitled to be compensated for something that boils down to a government handout. The government is quite literally forcing other people to pay you through threat of force, just like a tax.
On a more philosophical level, I'm not even sure that copyrights are necessary. It's too bad that a modern society doesn't exist that has experimented with abolishing them to see if they are really needed to generate artistic works. Certainly artistic works were created prior to copyright's modern implementation in the late 18th century.
Yes, I would like copyright law seriously revisited. It is a concept left over from the British monarchy - that someone can "own" information. There may very well be benefit to society from having short durations of monopoly - something more similar to patents. But there is no way that any artist considers the 90+ year duration of copyrights when pursuing their work. It's blatant abuse of state power, and I consider the ruling class to be the criminals - not the so-called "pirates".
This is why I tend to prefer buying former rental cars. One owner who at least changed the oil and a weird set of options that includes things like power windows but generally excludes everything else and has cloth seats. Simpler, very little to go wrong. They don't always offer that combination of options to the general public.
Slashdot Mirror
If you link to that same editorial one more time, then I'll believe it.
As persuasive a source as an article by a British politician is, I'd like to hear from someone who actually does this for a living.
Well, looking up the thread, you are an expert in talking completely past a person, I'll give you that.
I mention that there is no such thing as a model which supports anti-AGW, and you retort that the "experts" are producing biased models. I used my highly advanced deductive reasoning to assume that you meant that the models not supporting the anti-AGW argument, which would of course be all of them. Obviously you only meant SOME of them. How silly of me. Please accept my most sincere apologies and may the Festivus spirit fill you.
The "we shouldn't even attempt science" argument.
So the climate scientists' responses to the poor temperature prediction has been to improve the models and look for why there is a discrepancy. That is scientific. The unscientific thing to do is mine Google for items which reinforce your opinion on the matter.
Why are the experts continuing to come up with bad, biased models and continue to make predictions based on those bad, biased models?
I have a very hard time accepting your characterization of every single model ever created as "bad", with no counter-examples of a "good" model. How can you assess the non-expert's criticism if there is no way to test their assertions?
But you nailed it with "non-experts". Non-expert's opinions are generally not worth as much as an expert's opinion. There are many, many non-experts latched onto this field for ideological reasons. It's like evolution.
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
But surely, then, you remember that science doesn't stop at the question. You need to actually do research. In climate science, that means collecting data and building a model. I think it is noteworthy that no AGW opponent has built a model.
You can call them anything you want, but they are following the scientific method to the extent allowed by the nature of an observational science. They self-identify as scientists. AGW opponents do not have a single model that they can point to, and as far as I know, no prominent AGW opponent is working on a model. They can self-identify as scientists if they want, but they certainly aren't sticking to "their" philosophy.
Thanks for the high-res version. Is there some technical reason that they omit the ocean data? I would think the oceans have quite a bit of photosynthetic activity!
Thanks, I did not know that. But to be clear, this does not create junction points... this is the "official" method that I reference. I don't want people cutting-and-pasting Users :)
I'm thinking (hoping?) that normal disk caching would take care of stuff like that. Honestly, I'd just use the supported method unless your SSD was very, very tiny. I use the junction point method because I wipe out the C: drive from time to time to avoid Windows cruft. Every so often I apply Windows updates and re-baseline.
Windows is a pain in the ass, but with some determination you can set everything up on the SSD and then use "junction points" from the rescue disk to connect to a Users directory on a big spinning drive. If you are willing to get about 90% of the way there with just conventional tools, you can just move the "My Documents, My Music, etc." type directories by right-clicking on them, selecting Properties, and then going to the Location tab. From there you can move them to the spinning disk. This is fine if you only have a few users on the PC, but can get very tedious with multiple users.
Hey! I held off with my "barista at Space-Starbucks" joke.
Um, you have it backwards. Assad was the first Arab to sign a peace deal with Israel, and he was such a reliable ally of the US that he was allowed to build M1A1 tanks domestically. Gaddafi was a state sponsor of terrorism who was a total belligerent until Reagan ordered a bombing run.
But it matters not. When the revolution comes, we shall flee to the safe haven of Russia. Brother Putin will let us stay at his airport. I plan on taking a nuclear sub with me. It will be awkward to store at the airport, but the plan must be held.
The dead children will slow them down.
Um, Assad?
Ethics is an interesting discussion. The road is a finite resource for which demand exceeds supply. As a result, there is already rationing taking place - in the form of waits times to use the road: congestion. This is, on the surface, very "fair" and "egalitarian", but also very wasteful of time, gasoline, pollution, and wear-and-tear on equipment.
On the other hand, a system that lets poor people get where they want to go, albeit by bus, faster and more cheaply than before also could be deemed "fair". You'd have only affluent people driving, so that would create a societal divide.
I guess my answer is: I don't know.
Thank you, finally a future subject who "gets it". You'll go far in my administration.
Are you sure about that? I would think that clogging the roads is an inefficient use of infrastructure.
If I were dictator, I'd toll the roads as high as need be until traffic levels come down to designed capacity. If there is some excess cash after paying for maintenance, this would subsidize a bus route along the same now-free-flowing highway(s). The bus would actually be attractive, since it would be cheap and fast instead of simply stuck in traffic.
Then I'd jail or execute my political rivals and invade Canada.
You mean like people who want to prevent people from using their public street because it makes it unpleasant to walk the dog?
I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark with my kids and it was still fun. The special effects are dated, but that isn't the fault of the movie.
Fair enough, but did he ever say, "Crystal Skull is the best script I have ever read," or did he say, "This is the biggest paycheck I've ever seen!"?
I agree that there probably is some role for intellectual property protections, but I get mad when people start to feel entitled to be compensated for something that boils down to a government handout. The government is quite literally forcing other people to pay you through threat of force, just like a tax.
On a more philosophical level, I'm not even sure that copyrights are necessary. It's too bad that a modern society doesn't exist that has experimented with abolishing them to see if they are really needed to generate artistic works. Certainly artistic works were created prior to copyright's modern implementation in the late 18th century.
Yes, I would like copyright law seriously revisited. It is a concept left over from the British monarchy - that someone can "own" information. There may very well be benefit to society from having short durations of monopoly - something more similar to patents. But there is no way that any artist considers the 90+ year duration of copyrights when pursuing their work. It's blatant abuse of state power, and I consider the ruling class to be the criminals - not the so-called "pirates".
This is why I tend to prefer buying former rental cars. One owner who at least changed the oil and a weird set of options that includes things like power windows but generally excludes everything else and has cloth seats. Simpler, very little to go wrong. They don't always offer that combination of options to the general public.