Thanks, considering the procrastination I went through before buying a DSLR it's somewhat gratifying to know that NASA picked the same one I did. I have an early model DX2 (sold as coolpix 5700 in Oz), when I bought it 5MP was top of the range but due to the quality of the optics and large format CCD it still takes a better photo than a cheap camera with a much higher pixel count. The only disadvantages I've noticed over a traditional SLR is that time exposures are limited to a few minutes due to noisy pixels and like every digital I've ever used the shutter response is slow compared to a traditional SLR, even when focus, etc, is set to manual mode.
"In those movies, you have the evil one walking slowly, while their potential victims are running away at warp 10, and still, they are catched/slayed/etc."
Y2K was a real threat of financial doom and gloom to individual corporations, much scarier to the average CEO than war, alien invasions, or natural disasters.
"But in global warming we hear "Consensus! Peer-reviewed!"
Yes because that's how science is done, consensus is just another word for old fashioned term "the republic of science" which IIRC was coined by Popper. The "consensus" is simply 3 points that have been widely accepted by science for at least a decade now.
1. The Earth is warming.
2. Human emissions are responsible for the majority of the warming.
3. Failure to reduce GHG emissions will be detrimental to civilization.
Note that points 1 & 2 are what you agree is "set in stone".
"Global warming from greenhouse gases is set in stone. The amount this is warming the Earth is NOT. Feedback effects and factors are not set in stone. This is still being studied.
The IPCC, Al Gore, and the vast majority of climate scientists will wholeheartedly agree with that. The common meme that they don't is a result of effective propoganda.
"Did you know that Al Gore's company that sells carbon credits is worth 3 billion dollars?"
So what? The only thing that indicaes is there are a lot of companies and individuals who are at least trying to do something. Al Gore is in a no win situation, if he does put his money where is his mouth is then he is a "scammer", if he doesn't then he's a "hypocrite". It's easy to find examples of both claims from political hacks. Note that this does not mean that I think planting trees is an effective way to reduce emissions but he certainly has the right to invest in whatever he believes.
"Propaganda exists on both sides of this argument whether you want to believe it or not."
Yes there's plenty of examples at greenpeace, so why not point them out rather than repeating the opposing propoganda?
"IMHO, if the guy's data is on target, it should stand on it's own without needing backup via lawsuits."
It does stand on it's own but the lawsuit is not about the veracity of the his data it's about a systematic campaign to assasinate his character with baseless allegations of criminal and/or unethical conduct.
"Right, let's sue everyone who gives [deliberately malicious] false information. They should do what most scientists do, afaik, publish corrections and send letters, and try to educate people, and stuff alone those lines."
Climate scientists have been doing that since the 50's, I have personally followed such efforts since the late 70's but there is way too much of it to have read more than a tiny fraction.
To me it's gratifying to see that at least one well known climate nerd seems to be at a point where he is sick and fucking tierd of playing nice while recieving a constatnt stream of death threats due to systematic character assinations appearing on a daily basis in the MSM. I hope he is spectacularly successfull and his example is followed by an avalanche of rabid lawyers from the other top climate scientists who have been maliciously targeted by these political hacks and industry shills. With a bit of luck it will culminate in "coal trials" similar to the "tabacoo trials" of the past.
"No one goes into the field expecting to make a lot of money
Indeed, the IPCC has a paltry $5-6M budget and has never paid a red cent to any of the scientists who perform the tedious review work.
"Anyone who was alive during the 70s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between tobacco use and cancer."
Yes, in fact some of the same people and think tanks play staring roles in both campaigns and have recently been joined by creationists who employ similar methods in their disinformation campaign.
Here is the raw data, now will you please stop linking tabloid hit pieces and repeating their propoganda?
Note the raw data in the link has a few minor holes, this is due to the fact some national weather services (eg: France) will only release their data on condition you keep it private. If you intend to perform a reconstruction be aware the raw data is chock full of anaomolies such as undocumented station movements and typos. OTHOH Jones and his unit have spent the last couple of decades ferreting out and documenting these anomolies so you may want to consider using the more complete and more accurate HadCRUT data set or NASA's similarly painstakingly cleaned GISTemp data set.
As you may or may not be aware historical temprature reconstructions are fairly insensitive to the holes and anomolies mentioned above, meaning that the raw data in the link is more than sufficient to reproduce any of the historical temprature reconstructions in the literature. If this is still insuffitient to shake your faith in tabloid journalisim, you could try some of the other raw data and master repositiries.
"Science is a methodology, what's being dismissed is evidence that contradicts the pervasive theory."
No, what is being dismissed are red-herrings invented by lobbyists at think tanks such as the heartland institute. Effective propoganda is much cheaper than launching scientific instruments into space. The fact that you imply peer-review is hopelessly corrupt demonstrates how effective that propoganda can be.
"Real climate scientists have been fighting for years..."
Yes, RC have been fighting climate trolls with facts for years but it hasn't stopped the slander and libel. You may think someone is wrong, you may even be of the opinion they are an idiot but when economic alarmists like Monckton engage in systematic character assination by throwing around unsubstantiated charges of criminal behaviour they have crossed the line.
The fact that due to a constant stream of credible death threats the likes of Michael Mann and Jim Hansen need FBI protection to speak in public is testimony as to how serious the character assinations have become.
My only question is why has is taken so long for one of these high profile targets to defend themselves in a court of law?
Strictly speaking, an artillery shell is autonomous. How impressive the automation is depends on how adaptive it is.
Autonomous literally mean "self governing". Strictly speaking an artillery shell is ballistic, it is not autonomous since it is in no way "self governing".
point 2 & 3 Be the skeptic you claim to be, read the fucking testimony.
point 6 It is not the FIRST release, it's the realease for dummies.
point 7. I have a bridge for sale.
"Plastic money lasts a very long time, and therefore cannot be replaced with better bills as easily."
It's simple to replace money, you just get the banks to pull it out of circulation when it comes across the counter. Most countries can do this in a matter of months with zero inconvienience to the public. A few years ago Ireland pulled their notes because of a large bank robbery (swapping 50 million pounds would be noticable).
No need to make them non-legal tender, just take them out of circulation. Aussie one and two dollar notes are still legal tender, I've got a couple of them in an old photo album but I haven't seen anyone use them in the last 20yrs.
"This hubbub all came about because of the difficulty in prying the source data out of the hands of the guy who produced the "hockey stick" figures. It's covered in the book "Broken Consensus" I think it's called. The "hockey stick" is not the "source data", the source data is all of the individual readings from all the instruments, prior to corrections for sampling errors or known issues. One cannot verify the quality of the "hockey stick" result without having the source data and being able to verify the processing steps that were done to it."
I threw away some mod points because it irks me how unskeptical the garden variety climate skeptic actually is when it comes to accepting the hockey stick has been discredited. Here are a few points you should consider with your skeptics hat on...
1. Mann's original hockey stick was published in the jounal Nature, they are not well known for publishing shoddy work.
2. A senate inquisition was held on Mann's paper in which the National Acedemies of science were called in to give expert testimony on the veracity of Mann's paper. As you will no doubt learn when reading the testimony the NAS came down firmly in favour of Mann although they did highlight some minor technical problems.
3. Given that the NAS were able to agree with Mann's conclusions under oath at a hostile inquisition, how did they do so without access to the data?
4. The journal science is also not well known for publishing shoddy work. So why did NAS then publish a follow up study by Mann in their journal Science if they were not satisfied he had no only addressed the minor technical problems in the original but also greatly increaed the robustness of the findings?
5. Why can't I find a listing for a book called "broken consensus" which you cite as a source? Shouldn't you at least adhere to your own standards of evidence?
6. How do you explain the links to the data and methods found in an article called Dummies guide to the hockey stick on Mann's website?
7. Why do people belive that some difficult to obtain data (ie: time consuming) from a few nations means that the other 99.99999% of the raw data available on the web is insuffitient to recreate the hockey stick?
8. Why is McIntrye only interested in "auditing" climate science that disagrees with his opinion? Could this be because his own paper did not stand up to the traditional auditing method called "the test of time"?
If the above points do not at least cause you to question your sources then I can only conclude your sketics hat must have slipped down over your eyes...
A piston engine usually has something called an air filter so it's probably safe to fly. But all the piston powered planes in the world aren't enough to replace even one major airline.
I'm a smoker and outside the main city areas of Australia most people would consider throwing a butt out of the window tantamount to arson. In other places it may not be as serious but IMHO the selfish pigs that keep their own car clean by littering public highways should be put to work cleaning it up. I think 1km of highway per butt seems fair.
I used to teach C at uni in the early 90's. Students had to submit a printout of their assignments which I would grade and hand back. At the top of the printout they were required to put a comment block with their name, student id, etc. On more than one occasion I had two students hand in the exact same code right down to the name and id in the comment block. OTOH it's rarely that clear cut, especially when students are encouraged to work with each other.
Personally if I were enrolled in a course today I would like to think the teacher was actually spending their time looking at my assignments with critical eyeballs rather than comparing it to the work of others with a dumb script. Although assignments are usually worth some marks their real goal is to teach not to test. Anyone who cheats on their assignments is going to have a hard time passing the exam and any course woth attending will demand you pass the exam.
"The Prof would rather remain ignorant if that is the case... wow."
That wow deserves an exclamation mark! My partner has an (Aussie) Phd in marketing and even they have better ethical standards for their post-grads than what you describe. You should sack your supervisor and find an honest one before their bullshit destroys your own reputation.
"I thought I was getting a MS degree to learn and do science well. Instead, it's become drudgery"
"Genius is 5% inspiration, 95% perspiration" - Einstien.
Yeah right, just a simple farmer who also happened to be the equivalent of the head of the FDA. China's top dogs are DEADLY serious about "saving face" no matter how many influential scapegoats they have to sacrafice.
In China, he wouldn't have been caught during the act, or prosecuted afterwords. If he had been caught, he would have just split a portion of the profits with their government.
Bargain with a totalitarian government that you have embarrased? - I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, considering the procrastination I went through before buying a DSLR it's somewhat gratifying to know that NASA picked the same one I did. I have an early model DX2 (sold as coolpix 5700 in Oz), when I bought it 5MP was top of the range but due to the quality of the optics and large format CCD it still takes a better photo than a cheap camera with a much higher pixel count. The only disadvantages I've noticed over a traditional SLR is that time exposures are limited to a few minutes due to noisy pixels and like every digital I've ever used the shutter response is slow compared to a traditional SLR, even when focus, etc, is set to manual mode.
"In those movies, you have the evil one walking slowly, while their potential victims are running away at warp 10, and still, they are catched/slayed/etc."
K-K-K-Keeny's c-c-c-coming to k-k-k-kill me
Y2K was a real threat of financial doom and gloom to individual corporations, much scarier to the average CEO than war, alien invasions, or natural disasters.
"But in global warming we hear "Consensus! Peer-reviewed!"
Yes because that's how science is done, consensus is just another word for old fashioned term "the republic of science" which IIRC was coined by Popper. The "consensus" is simply 3 points that have been widely accepted by science for at least a decade now.
1. The Earth is warming.
2. Human emissions are responsible for the majority of the warming.
3. Failure to reduce GHG emissions will be detrimental to civilization.
Note that points 1 & 2 are what you agree is "set in stone".
"Global warming from greenhouse gases is set in stone. The amount this is warming the Earth is NOT. Feedback effects and factors are not set in stone. This is still being studied.
The IPCC, Al Gore, and the vast majority of climate scientists will wholeheartedly agree with that. The common meme that they don't is a result of effective propoganda.
"Did you know that Al Gore's company that sells carbon credits is worth 3 billion dollars?"
So what? The only thing that indicaes is there are a lot of companies and individuals who are at least trying to do something. Al Gore is in a no win situation, if he does put his money where is his mouth is then he is a "scammer", if he doesn't then he's a "hypocrite". It's easy to find examples of both claims from political hacks. Note that this does not mean that I think planting trees is an effective way to reduce emissions but he certainly has the right to invest in whatever he believes.
"Propaganda exists on both sides of this argument whether you want to believe it or not."
Yes there's plenty of examples at greenpeace, so why not point them out rather than repeating the opposing propoganda?
"IMHO, if the guy's data is on target, it should stand on it's own without needing backup via lawsuits."
It does stand on it's own but the lawsuit is not about the veracity of the his data it's about a systematic campaign to assasinate his character with baseless allegations of criminal and/or unethical conduct.
"Right, let's sue everyone who gives [deliberately malicious] false information. They should do what most scientists do, afaik, publish corrections and send letters, and try to educate people, and stuff alone those lines."
Climate scientists have been doing that since the 50's, I have personally followed such efforts since the late 70's but there is way too much of it to have read more than a tiny fraction.
To me it's gratifying to see that at least one well known climate nerd seems to be at a point where he is sick and fucking tierd of playing nice while recieving a constatnt stream of death threats due to systematic character assinations appearing on a daily basis in the MSM. I hope he is spectacularly successfull and his example is followed by an avalanche of rabid lawyers from the other top climate scientists who have been maliciously targeted by these political hacks and industry shills. With a bit of luck it will culminate in "coal trials" similar to the "tabacoo trials" of the past.
"No one goes into the field expecting to make a lot of money
Indeed, the IPCC has a paltry $5-6M budget and has never paid a red cent to any of the scientists who perform the tedious review work.
"Anyone who was alive during the 70s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between tobacco use and cancer."
Yes, in fact some of the same people and think tanks play staring roles in both campaigns and have recently been joined by creationists who employ similar methods in their disinformation campaign.
Here is the raw data, now will you please stop linking tabloid hit pieces and repeating their propoganda?
Note the raw data in the link has a few minor holes, this is due to the fact some national weather services (eg: France) will only release their data on condition you keep it private. If you intend to perform a reconstruction be aware the raw data is chock full of anaomolies such as undocumented station movements and typos. OTHOH Jones and his unit have spent the last couple of decades ferreting out and documenting these anomolies so you may want to consider using the more complete and more accurate HadCRUT data set or NASA's similarly painstakingly cleaned GISTemp data set.
As you may or may not be aware historical temprature reconstructions are fairly insensitive to the holes and anomolies mentioned above, meaning that the raw data in the link is more than sufficient to reproduce any of the historical temprature reconstructions in the literature. If this is still insuffitient to shake your faith in tabloid journalisim, you could try some of the other raw data and master repositiries.
"Science is a methodology, what's being dismissed is evidence that contradicts the pervasive theory."
No, what is being dismissed are red-herrings invented by lobbyists at think tanks such as the heartland institute. Effective propoganda is much cheaper than launching scientific instruments into space. The fact that you imply peer-review is hopelessly corrupt demonstrates how effective that propoganda can be.
"Real climate scientists have been fighting for years..."
Yes, RC have been fighting climate trolls with facts for years but it hasn't stopped the slander and libel. You may think someone is wrong, you may even be of the opinion they are an idiot but when economic alarmists like Monckton engage in systematic character assination by throwing around unsubstantiated charges of criminal behaviour they have crossed the line.
The fact that due to a constant stream of credible death threats the likes of Michael Mann and Jim Hansen need FBI protection to speak in public is testimony as to how serious the character assinations have become.
My only question is why has is taken so long for one of these high profile targets to defend themselves in a court of law?
Strictly speaking, an artillery shell is autonomous. How impressive the automation is depends on how adaptive it is.
Autonomous literally mean "self governing". Strictly speaking an artillery shell is ballistic, it is not autonomous since it is in no way "self governing".
point 2 & 3 Be the skeptic you claim to be, read the fucking testimony.
point 6 It is not the FIRST release, it's the realease for dummies.
point 7. I have a bridge for sale.
"Plastic money lasts a very long time, and therefore cannot be replaced with better bills as easily."
It's simple to replace money, you just get the banks to pull it out of circulation when it comes across the counter. Most countries can do this in a matter of months with zero inconvienience to the public. A few years ago Ireland pulled their notes because of a large bank robbery (swapping 50 million pounds would be noticable).
No need to make them non-legal tender, just take them out of circulation. Aussie one and two dollar notes are still legal tender, I've got a couple of them in an old photo album but I haven't seen anyone use them in the last 20yrs.
"This hubbub all came about because of the difficulty in prying the source data out of the hands of the guy who produced the "hockey stick" figures. It's covered in the book "Broken Consensus" I think it's called. The "hockey stick" is not the "source data", the source data is all of the individual readings from all the instruments, prior to corrections for sampling errors or known issues. One cannot verify the quality of the "hockey stick" result without having the source data and being able to verify the processing steps that were done to it."
I threw away some mod points because it irks me how unskeptical the garden variety climate skeptic actually is when it comes to accepting the hockey stick has been discredited. Here are a few points you should consider with your skeptics hat on...
1. Mann's original hockey stick was published in the jounal Nature, they are not well known for publishing shoddy work.
2. A senate inquisition was held on Mann's paper in which the National Acedemies of science were called in to give expert testimony on the veracity of Mann's paper. As you will no doubt learn when reading the testimony the NAS came down firmly in favour of Mann although they did highlight some minor technical problems.
3. Given that the NAS were able to agree with Mann's conclusions under oath at a hostile inquisition, how did they do so without access to the data?
4. The journal science is also not well known for publishing shoddy work. So why did NAS then publish a follow up study by Mann in their journal Science if they were not satisfied he had no only addressed the minor technical problems in the original but also greatly increaed the robustness of the findings?
5. Why can't I find a listing for a book called "broken consensus" which you cite as a source? Shouldn't you at least adhere to your own standards of evidence?
6. How do you explain the links to the data and methods found in an article called Dummies guide to the hockey stick on Mann's website?
7. Why do people belive that some difficult to obtain data (ie: time consuming) from a few nations means that the other 99.99999% of the raw data available on the web is insuffitient to recreate the hockey stick?
8. Why is McIntrye only interested in "auditing" climate science that disagrees with his opinion? Could this be because his own paper did not stand up to the traditional auditing method called "the test of time"?
If the above points do not at least cause you to question your sources then I can only conclude your sketics hat must have slipped down over your eyes...
A piston engine usually has something called an air filter so it's probably safe to fly. But all the piston powered planes in the world aren't enough to replace even one major airline.
I'm a smoker and outside the main city areas of Australia most people would consider throwing a butt out of the window tantamount to arson. In other places it may not be as serious but IMHO the selfish pigs that keep their own car clean by littering public highways should be put to work cleaning it up. I think 1km of highway per butt seems fair.
I used to teach C at uni in the early 90's. Students had to submit a printout of their assignments which I would grade and hand back. At the top of the printout they were required to put a comment block with their name, student id, etc. On more than one occasion I had two students hand in the exact same code right down to the name and id in the comment block. OTOH it's rarely that clear cut, especially when students are encouraged to work with each other.
Personally if I were enrolled in a course today I would like to think the teacher was actually spending their time looking at my assignments with critical eyeballs rather than comparing it to the work of others with a dumb script. Although assignments are usually worth some marks their real goal is to teach not to test. Anyone who cheats on their assignments is going to have a hard time passing the exam and any course woth attending will demand you pass the exam.
Maybe if the languages accepted are functional, and therefore logically provable without side-effects.
Someone tell those monkeys to stop working on Shakespear, bigattichouse has found a more usefull project for them.
Good grief man, do you realise your proposal is how hope desks already don't work.
"My view is that there just is no substitute for a system of social morality like those in eastern cultures of old."
Yeah, Atilla the hun was a real sweetheart.
I think a lot of those wall-street types would suddenly admit to everything they've done wrong if you confront them with a big enough Python...
Considering the amount of snake oil on Wall street, I think the python would be the one begging for mercy.
"The Prof would rather remain ignorant if that is the case... wow."
That wow deserves an exclamation mark! My partner has an (Aussie) Phd in marketing and even they have better ethical standards for their post-grads than what you describe. You should sack your supervisor and find an honest one before their bullshit destroys your own reputation.
"I thought I was getting a MS degree to learn and do science well. Instead, it's become drudgery"
"Genius is 5% inspiration, 95% perspiration" - Einstien.
Yeah right, just a simple farmer who also happened to be the equivalent of the head of the FDA. China's top dogs are DEADLY serious about "saving face" no matter how many influential scapegoats they have to sacrafice.
At least they went after Madoff after the fact.
In China, he wouldn't have been caught during the act, or prosecuted afterwords. If he had been caught, he would have just split a portion of the profits with their government.
Bargain with a totalitarian government that you have embarrased? - I don't think so.