They could use "secret" accounts, and perhaps "social networking" (via log trawling) is the "bigger picture" the authorities are looking at. I have no sympathy for rock spiders but I belive they are "criminally insane". If they are a danger to the public what are they doing roaming around anyway? If they are not a danger and have done their time they should be free from government harrasment.
Of course in the real world you have to trust the people who get to declare someone else as "dangerous". Give them free reign and lists get made, the net widens, and before you know it Stalin is back in town! OTOH: It is obvious that someone who has molested children is not to be trusted either, and should not be allowed to come into contact with kids through their job, ect. In other words the courts sould be free to set/review whatever conditions they deem are nesassary on an individual basis rather than be bound by blind obiedience to politically inspired red tape.
Having said that, has anyone in the US taken a critical look at the "targets" on the sex offenders list? As I understand it the US "sex offenders" list lump's together streakers and child abuser's, and by an interesting "coincidence" the list was the crusade of one congressman Foley who, it turns out, used his position of power to prey on teenage boys.
My question is: Did Foley create the list in order to obufscate the search for predatory social networks by broadening the search to include victimless "public decency" type offences or have I got may facts wrong concerning the list?
"Humanity will inevitably learn new technologies to cheaply and exactly replicate patterns of matter, much as we currently are able to flawlessly and freely share patterns of information." [My emphasis]
As someone who has spent the last two decades developing and supporting large software systems may I just say, we are doomed.
BTW: I do share your sentiments about the importance of the current digital era: "For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals, then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk." - Steven Hawking's introduction to Pink Floyd's "Keep Talking".
What point are you trying to make, should they give up because their ultimate goal will never be reached?
Re:And the universe begins to look more electric
on
Predicting Space Weather
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Check out his posting history, logic and math will not alter this guy's rigid dogma.
The EU theory preys apon the same ignorance as "Chariots of the Gods" did in the 70's. The entire "theory" is a book that uses real observations to demolish a straw man argument. The authour can be somewhat excused since he seems to be suffering from persecution complex concerning the "scientific establishment", however I do find it drepressing that he is dragging gullible people down with him.
The best thing the GP could do for himself is to read Carl Sagan's "Demon haunted world", I have suggested this to him but he seems incapable of handling the "truth".
Arp is wrong in his interpretation of redshifts (although the idea was plausible a few decades ago when he first formulated his ideas). Since then the hubble telescope has measued the spectra and redshifts of quasars and importantly nearby objects with similar red shifts. eg: There was a story on slashdot a while back that described a jupiter sized ball of gas ejected from the milky-way balck hole's accretion disk at near light speed.
The thing that Arp did not have when he formulated his theory was evidence of these nearby objects for comparison against quasars. Rather than accept new evidence Arp has chosen to join the relms of psuedo-science. His book is simply a retelling of many science stories designed to butter you up for his point that everyone makes maistakes except himself. Pity he threw away his education in a failed attempt to gain immortality.
The other argument in his book is the old holistic/reductionist dichotomy, he is asseting that science is missing the "big picture" or "alternative big pictures" because of it's obsession with details. The choice he proposes here is a straw-man since there is no choice to be made, details by definition are what supports "the big picture", no other "big picture" covers the details as well as the current status-quo. And guess what, the status-quo has changed many times over the last few decades and is continually changing and improving (ie: the definition of science).
You can turn this into a "life mission" if you like, "the scientific establishment" and I are just suggesting there are better uses for your time.
Well said and the poularity of this article demonstrates your point. The notion that geeks should shun politics is simply failing to understand the nature of geeks. One important (almost definitional) trait of a geek is that they like to pull things apart in order to "fix" them.
Geeks had quite a bit of influence when it came to writing the US constitution.
Summarising the dust jacket of the linked book:
Thomas Jefferson, able to read and understand Newton's principa. He gave scientific lectures on fossils while he was VP and had many inventions to his name.
Ben Franklin, internationally renowned geek in his own lifetime.
John Adams had an impecable geek education, including areas such as "Pnewmaticks, Hydrostaticks, Mechanicks and Opticks".
James Madison was that most uncommon of beasts, a geek with lucid communication skills, he "peppered his Federalist Papers with references to physics, chemistry and the life sciences".
I have never been to the US, I picked up the book a few years ago because of my casual interest in the history of science. Regardless of where you live, geeks have influenced politics since the days of stonehenge style calendars. I don't see any reason to deliberately exlude ourselves now.
As for gun control, here in Australia anyone who keeps a gun in their bedside drawer for "self defense" is considered a dangerous gun nut. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and from experience can tell you it has not always been like that. These days the cultural objection towards people owning guns for "self-defense" is firmly set in legislation and the general population. It is so strong that the overwhelming majority (including myself) would kick anyone out of office who even suggested we go back to selling guns and ammo in supermarkets.
There are no absolutes in life, and that includes the US constitution and freedom. Geeks with graphs have shown gun cultures pay a price for their "freedom" (OTOH: Iraq demonstrates the principle of a well armed malitia rejecting the US government). Science, politics and lawyers can only go so far towards changing a culture, the "big picture" was best expressed by a US president: "We have nothing to fear except fear itself".
"There is no math that proves nullable strings are objectively superior for all intelligent species."
You are hung up on the string thing, NULL's apply to all data types and the branch of mathematics that justifies their existance is called "set theory". Mathematically NULL is known as an empty set, modern RDBMS's would not exist without set theory, the empty set is a fundemental axiom of set theory. Now, perhaps some other intelligent species will be kind enough to set us straight, but right now the dolphins are busy having sex so set theory is what we are stuck with.
If you learnt "on the job" then I understand your difficulty with NULL's, if you have an IT degree...well...you should understand set theory already. Either way I encorage you to look at the mathematical foundations of Computer Science, Godel and Turing are two names worth the effort. Who knows, perhaps you will find the mathematical genius who discovered NULL's.
Like everyone else has said CSIRO is The Aussie science agency (capital 'T' since many countries have multiple agencies). However since I support my tax dollars going to CSIRO I wondered how many $ are going there? A quick check on the site supports their reputation for transparency and provides some numbers.
Total Income (including tax $'s): $929M
Income from tax $'s: $250M ($12.50 per Aussie)
Total expenditure: $947M
Total Equity: $1126M
Not everyone is a taxpayer and many taxpayers would rather spend the money on public firework displays or a packet of smokes, personally I think it is worth more than my ~$50/year.
"A better example of patents working would be if CSIRO said "we're doing this because we think we can make money by patenting it"."
They have been around for nearly a century, they have "lost" heaps by under-selling or giving patents away (particularly in the area of drug research). In the 80's there was a drive to get more "value" from their inventions and they are a bit wiser in that area now. However the CSIRO is still a "public service" (and a good one at that), similar to NASA and other US agencies it's aim is not to be self-funding but they do realise there is a buck to made and are less inclined to "throw things away" these days.
It's stated purpose is to..."Deliver great science and innovative solutions for industry, society and the environment." Note it says nothing about profit or cost, however it has grown into one of the largest and most diverse scientific agencies on earth. As a political statement it is a prime conter-example to the false notion that capitalism and socialisim are two sides of a binary choice.
PS: If you want a entertaining insight into the CSIRO, there is an excellent movie called "The Dish".
Radio comms has been a productive area of reasearch at CSIRO for decades. Politicians who ignore them are the ones who waste MY tax dollars. There are many examples that defend the CSIRO's enviable reputation for genuine science without political "fear or favour", ie a "model public service" (as opposed to the non-existant "perfected public service" or the ever present "public propoganda service").
To give an example of just one "public service": The CSIRO were the first to demonstrate to the world that radiation from atmoshperic testing of nukes was ending up as plutonium and other RA trace elements in childrens bones (MY bones considering the era). They found out by starting with an agricultural study into sheep near an Australian test site run by the Brit's and found the bombs were adding to a rapidly growing planet wide "haze" of radioactive dust.
Obviously they were not popular with the politicians of the day when their extrodinary claim was promptly backed with extrodinary evidence.
You mean like using "9999" for an unknown COBOL date, yeah I know, most of us made money out of that galactic screw-up, but "magic numbers" are a BadThing(TM) in databases. Done correctly, NULL is implemented as a property of the field, not as a value of the field. Conceptually NULL doesn't even have a type so restricting the types it's applied to will artificially decrease usefull functionality that right now, is impossible to replicate with a "workaround". The point here being that NULL is "something" that can never be "anything".
"The problems caused by string nulls are far more than the benefits."
All I am saying is that NULL's exist for very good reasons, not the least of which are scientific, statistical and legal applications. Null's are synonymous with imperfect knowledge in an untidy universe. If you don't want to handle null's at the front end then define the field(s) as "not NULL" before you start inserting garbage.
Like that new fangled corporate IP phone thingy that sends a.wav file to my standard corporate computer that doesn't have a sound card, if you don't need the functionality then don't use it, but it's still good to know it's there and to understand it's pro's/con's. If forced too use NULL's by legacy then blame the (usually long gone) DB designer, not the proven functionality of the RDBMS.
"I am not a newbie"
Having written my first commercial RDBMS from scratch for the ultimately doomed "penpoint O/S" in the early 90's, neither am I. That woosh you heard was not me attacking your experiences or your well founded aggravation toward the overuse of NULL strings.
"That is not a common need....I don't like them and you cannot talk me into them."
I used to feel the same way about green eggs and ham.:)
Australia's network covers huge areas with a spare population, it uses radio and/or sattelite links to link remote exchanges to the trunk. During the late 90's I had extensive experience with an Australian wide mobile application, back then the radio links had a 2500 baud connection. Arguing about service to the bush is a political constant that hasn't changed in the last few decades.
"If I die and there is an afterlife, I will hunt down the person that made this a convention and make them eat a Null Pill so that their entire body (spirit?) is nullified."
Nulls are like cops, everybody hates them until they need them.
The problem you describe is known as GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). What happens when your example needs to differentiate between "unknown strings" and "empty strings"? Why not do a select that avoids extracting records with NULL's when you don't want them?
Traditionally the "missing data" hassles are pushed all the way from data collection to front end so that the original data (or lack of) is not lost. One rarely knows what a user may want to display in the future and rewritting the front end is simpler than rewriting the whole fucking thing.
"String theory doesn't predict anything. Its not testable. Its not science. Its caused some interesting advances in math to solve certain aspects of it, but thats about it."
I agree, and until it makes a testable prediction it will remain as pure maths (or metaphysics if you like that turn of phrase better). This doesn't mean it's a waste of time nor does it mean that it will always be untestable, it just means that right now it is not science.
Cold fussion claims have been extensively tested, the results are not repeatable, if there is any effect at all is is too small to be of any use in power generation. Now stop being lazy and do some research for yourself.
Who knows? I certainly don't. Do you? Last I checked those possibilities are as plausible as any others.
The fact that all new ideas have equal weight is why the scientific method was created in the first place, do you have a better system for sorting the shit from the clay or do you just "rage against the machine" because it doesn't agree with your bias?
"You fail to provide any support for your claim that I am being unrealistic. I on the other hand have brought ample examples of corrupt and bias manner of things in the real world. You seem to deny those things, again, without providing a reason. I am forced to conclude that it is you who are exhibiting childlike naitivity and ignoring the real nature of a harsh unfair world."
Yeah, the world is unfair and everyone who does not agree with you is incapable of thinking, yet I look up from my navel and can see the fruits of science all around me. The crackpot attitude you display is born from the arrogant assumption that you are capable of judging something that you freely admit you know nothing about.
""IANAP". I'll definitely remember that one. That's so emblematic of the whole problem. I'm not a physicist. I couldn't possibly understand these things because *they* told me so."
IANA surgeon either, the difference between you and me is that I belive the system "works" and ask questions, you belive the system is slanted against you but would demand a qualified surgeon anyway.
"Like I said before, think for yourself. If more people were doing that, then we'd all be better off"
Would you agree "thinking for myself" would include not swallowing the assertions in a slashdot post simply because the authour insults my intelligence?
BTW: The electric universe theory is not you "thinking for yourself" it is simply repeating someone else's theory. The EU theory uses real observations to attack imaginary problems in physics/cosmology and completely crushes the straw man it builds, so what? I repeat, show me any peer-reviewed article on the electric universe theory and maybe I will be encouraged to spend some time on it.
Like I said IANAP but I do have a BSc, the reason I don't want to look into your theory (apart from it chewing up time) is twofold.
1. You support it by claiming a conspiracy of silence and disparaging others in the field.
2. You are confused about what the current theories actually say, ie: you are attacking a straw-man.
The only method by which you will get scientists to look at your theory seriously is the scientific method and in practice that means peer-review. Can you point to any peer-reviewed papers that describe your pet theory or is it all just star-trek speak?
"Well, what if it's rather difficult to get a tenure-track job as a climatologist if you don't advocate the consensus view?"
The job description for any research scientist requires you to attack the status-quo not defend it, if you don't know what the status-quo is then you unlikely to be of much use, are you?
What happens, then, if it's difficult to get a contrarian article into a peer-reviewed journal? That's often the case, as it happens. For someone with results that cut against the grain, it can take years to break through the peer review wall, assuming you're able to keep going that long.
Yes, it took science 20yrs to fully accept AGW, it has taken a further decade to convince the likes of Bush, Murdoch and Howard. The "extrodinary claim" of AGW's "hockey stick" (circa 1980) has indeed been supported by "extrodinary evidence". Thousands of scientists started saying "look out" 10yrs ago, frustration at the willfully deaf for the (temporary?) political stagnation they have created is understandable in my books. It is abudantly clear that we need clean substitutes for fossil fuels and we need 'em fast!
"This isn't unique to climatology - I've seen other situations in which a highly charged issue that has many believers on one side can squeeze out any last dissent."
This is a straw-man, there is vigourous debate on all sorts of issues (eg: missing methane, tipping points, what hurricanes?). Nobody has yet come up with a better theory than AGW to explain the observed changes in 20th century climate and there have been an avalanche of claims for ~30yrs now, none (or is it one?) of these claims has passed peer-review in the least 10yrs, this simply indicates every contra-claimant has failed to account for "something" not that every contra-claimaint is wrong. Is it hard for a discredited status-quo to rise agian? Damm right it is!!!
Although there is vigourous debate, scientific models allow us to test competing ideas via prediction rather than a direct experiment on a single entity (the climate or the economy), AGW has passed this test many times and continues to improve. The Stern report shows AGW is also taken seriously by hard nosed economists from the Friedman school of Thatcherisim. For policy makers to ignore this wealth of research into an observable phenomena is a waste of taxpayer funds and tantamount to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and singling la-la-la.
I agree there are very few Einstein's. The idea of a Phd is to show others you can comprehend and intelligently question the "state of the art" in your chosen field and few have done that as devastatingly as Albert and his "three pager". The documented ability to sucessfully attack the status-quo using the scientific method is what an applicant for tenure must have, an academic institution's "pre$tige" relies on their ability to recognise people who can attack the status-quo, it is in the institution's own self interest to avoid "me-too-ism".
So yes, there is an "institutional bias" toward hiring people who at least seem to know what "it" is they are supposed to attack. I also belive hospitals suffer from a similar "institutional bias" when hiring surgeons.
Slashdot Mirror
They could use "secret" accounts, and perhaps "social networking" (via log trawling) is the "bigger picture" the authorities are looking at. I have no sympathy for rock spiders but I belive they are "criminally insane". If they are a danger to the public what are they doing roaming around anyway? If they are not a danger and have done their time they should be free from government harrasment.
Of course in the real world you have to trust the people who get to declare someone else as "dangerous". Give them free reign and lists get made, the net widens, and before you know it Stalin is back in town! OTOH: It is obvious that someone who has molested children is not to be trusted either, and should not be allowed to come into contact with kids through their job, ect. In other words the courts sould be free to set/review whatever conditions they deem are nesassary on an individual basis rather than be bound by blind obiedience to politically inspired red tape.
Having said that, has anyone in the US taken a critical look at the "targets" on the sex offenders list? As I understand it the US "sex offenders" list lump's together streakers and child abuser's, and by an interesting "coincidence" the list was the crusade of one congressman Foley who, it turns out, used his position of power to prey on teenage boys.
My question is: Did Foley create the list in order to obufscate the search for predatory social networks by broadening the search to include victimless "public decency" type offences or have I got may facts wrong concerning the list?
1314? - Only on slashdot would I ask: What calenar system are you using?
"Humanity will inevitably learn new technologies to cheaply and exactly replicate patterns of matter, much as we currently are able to flawlessly and freely share patterns of information." [My emphasis]
As someone who has spent the last two decades developing and supporting large software systems may I just say, we are doomed.
BTW: I do share your sentiments about the importance of the current digital era: "For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals, then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk." - Steven Hawking's introduction to Pink Floyd's "Keep Talking".
What point are you trying to make, should they give up because their ultimate goal will never be reached?
Check out his posting history, logic and math will not alter this guy's rigid dogma.
The EU theory preys apon the same ignorance as "Chariots of the Gods" did in the 70's. The entire "theory" is a book that uses real observations to demolish a straw man argument. The authour can be somewhat excused since he seems to be suffering from persecution complex concerning the "scientific establishment", however I do find it drepressing that he is dragging gullible people down with him.
The best thing the GP could do for himself is to read Carl Sagan's "Demon haunted world", I have suggested this to him but he seems incapable of handling the "truth".
Arp is wrong in his interpretation of redshifts (although the idea was plausible a few decades ago when he first formulated his ideas). Since then the hubble telescope has measued the spectra and redshifts of quasars and importantly nearby objects with similar red shifts. eg: There was a story on slashdot a while back that described a jupiter sized ball of gas ejected from the milky-way balck hole's accretion disk at near light speed.
The thing that Arp did not have when he formulated his theory was evidence of these nearby objects for comparison against quasars. Rather than accept new evidence Arp has chosen to join the relms of psuedo-science. His book is simply a retelling of many science stories designed to butter you up for his point that everyone makes maistakes except himself. Pity he threw away his education in a failed attempt to gain immortality.
The other argument in his book is the old holistic/reductionist dichotomy, he is asseting that science is missing the "big picture" or "alternative big pictures" because of it's obsession with details. The choice he proposes here is a straw-man since there is no choice to be made, details by definition are what supports "the big picture", no other "big picture" covers the details as well as the current status-quo. And guess what, the status-quo has changed many times over the last few decades and is continually changing and improving (ie: the definition of science).
You can turn this into a "life mission" if you like, "the scientific establishment" and I are just suggesting there are better uses for your time.
Well said and the poularity of this article demonstrates your point. The notion that geeks should shun politics is simply failing to understand the nature of geeks. One important (almost definitional) trait of a geek is that they like to pull things apart in order to "fix" them.
Geeks had quite a bit of influence when it came to writing the US constitution.
Summarising the dust jacket of the linked book:
Thomas Jefferson, able to read and understand Newton's principa. He gave scientific lectures on fossils while he was VP and had many inventions to his name.
Ben Franklin, internationally renowned geek in his own lifetime.
John Adams had an impecable geek education, including areas such as "Pnewmaticks, Hydrostaticks, Mechanicks and Opticks".
James Madison was that most uncommon of beasts, a geek with lucid communication skills, he "peppered his Federalist Papers with references to physics, chemistry and the life sciences".
I have never been to the US, I picked up the book a few years ago because of my casual interest in the history of science. Regardless of where you live, geeks have influenced politics since the days of stonehenge style calendars. I don't see any reason to deliberately exlude ourselves now.
As for gun control, here in Australia anyone who keeps a gun in their bedside drawer for "self defense" is considered a dangerous gun nut. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and from experience can tell you it has not always been like that. These days the cultural objection towards people owning guns for "self-defense" is firmly set in legislation and the general population. It is so strong that the overwhelming majority (including myself) would kick anyone out of office who even suggested we go back to selling guns and ammo in supermarkets.
There are no absolutes in life, and that includes the US constitution and freedom. Geeks with graphs have shown gun cultures pay a price for their "freedom" (OTOH: Iraq demonstrates the principle of a well armed malitia rejecting the US government). Science, politics and lawyers can only go so far towards changing a culture, the "big picture" was best expressed by a US president: "We have nothing to fear except fear itself".
"Well, I don't want to get into null fight here."
:)
Yes, let's not fight over nothing.
"There is no math that proves nullable strings are objectively superior for all intelligent species."
You are hung up on the string thing, NULL's apply to all data types and the branch of mathematics that justifies their existance is called "set theory". Mathematically NULL is known as an empty set, modern RDBMS's would not exist without set theory, the empty set is a fundemental axiom of set theory. Now, perhaps some other intelligent species will be kind enough to set us straight, but right now the dolphins are busy having sex so set theory is what we are stuck with.
If you learnt "on the job" then I understand your difficulty with NULL's, if you have an IT degree...well...you should understand set theory already. Either way I encorage you to look at the mathematical foundations of Computer Science, Godel and Turing are two names worth the effort. Who knows, perhaps you will find the mathematical genius who discovered NULL's.
"Professionalism"
"I will maintain professional" - Doh!
"Professionalism"
"I will maintain professional" - Doh!
"Professionalism"
"I will maintain professional" - Doh!
"Professionalism"
"I will maintain professional" - Doh!
Stupid "professionalism", take that, argg, and that, ugff,....
Like everyone else has said CSIRO is The Aussie science agency (capital 'T' since many countries have multiple agencies). However since I support my tax dollars going to CSIRO I wondered how many $ are going there? A quick check on the site supports their reputation for transparency and provides some numbers.
Total Income (including tax $'s): $929M Income from tax $'s: $250M ($12.50 per Aussie) Total expenditure: $947M Total Equity: $1126M
Not everyone is a taxpayer and many taxpayers would rather spend the money on public firework displays or a packet of smokes, personally I think it is worth more than my ~$50/year.
"A better example of patents working would be if CSIRO said "we're doing this because we think we can make money by patenting it"."
They have been around for nearly a century, they have "lost" heaps by under-selling or giving patents away (particularly in the area of drug research). In the 80's there was a drive to get more "value" from their inventions and they are a bit wiser in that area now. However the CSIRO is still a "public service" (and a good one at that), similar to NASA and other US agencies it's aim is not to be self-funding but they do realise there is a buck to made and are less inclined to "throw things away" these days.
It's stated purpose is to..."Deliver great science and innovative solutions for industry, society and the environment." Note it says nothing about profit or cost, however it has grown into one of the largest and most diverse scientific agencies on earth. As a political statement it is a prime conter-example to the false notion that capitalism and socialisim are two sides of a binary choice.
PS: If you want a entertaining insight into the CSIRO, there is an excellent movie called "The Dish".
Radio comms has been a productive area of reasearch at CSIRO for decades. Politicians who ignore them are the ones who waste MY tax dollars. There are many examples that defend the CSIRO's enviable reputation for genuine science without political "fear or favour", ie a "model public service" (as opposed to the non-existant "perfected public service" or the ever present "public propoganda service").
To give an example of just one "public service": The CSIRO were the first to demonstrate to the world that radiation from atmoshperic testing of nukes was ending up as plutonium and other RA trace elements in childrens bones (MY bones considering the era). They found out by starting with an agricultural study into sheep near an Australian test site run by the Brit's and found the bombs were adding to a rapidly growing planet wide "haze" of radioactive dust.
Obviously they were not popular with the politicians of the day when their extrodinary claim was promptly backed with extrodinary evidence.
That should read "sparse population", and "2400 baud" (aka, honey from the fridge).
"Use "[unknown]" or something."
.wav file to my standard corporate computer that doesn't have a sound card, if you don't need the functionality then don't use it, but it's still good to know it's there and to understand it's pro's/con's. If forced too use NULL's by legacy then blame the (usually long gone) DB designer, not the proven functionality of the RDBMS.
:)
You mean like using "9999" for an unknown COBOL date, yeah I know, most of us made money out of that galactic screw-up, but "magic numbers" are a BadThing(TM) in databases. Done correctly, NULL is implemented as a property of the field, not as a value of the field. Conceptually NULL doesn't even have a type so restricting the types it's applied to will artificially decrease usefull functionality that right now, is impossible to replicate with a "workaround". The point here being that NULL is "something" that can never be "anything".
"The problems caused by string nulls are far more than the benefits."
All I am saying is that NULL's exist for very good reasons, not the least of which are scientific, statistical and legal applications. Null's are synonymous with imperfect knowledge in an untidy universe. If you don't want to handle null's at the front end then define the field(s) as "not NULL" before you start inserting garbage.
Like that new fangled corporate IP phone thingy that sends a
"I am not a newbie"
Having written my first commercial RDBMS from scratch for the ultimately doomed "penpoint O/S" in the early 90's, neither am I. That woosh you heard was not me attacking your experiences or your well founded aggravation toward the overuse of NULL strings.
"That is not a common need....I don't like them and you cannot talk me into them."
I used to feel the same way about green eggs and ham.
Australia's network covers huge areas with a spare population, it uses radio and/or sattelite links to link remote exchanges to the trunk. During the late 90's I had extensive experience with an Australian wide mobile application, back then the radio links had a 2500 baud connection. Arguing about service to the bush is a political constant that hasn't changed in the last few decades.
"If I die and there is an afterlife, I will hunt down the person that made this a convention and make them eat a Null Pill so that their entire body (spirit?) is nullified."
Nulls are like cops, everybody hates them until they need them.
The problem you describe is known as GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). What happens when your example needs to differentiate between "unknown strings" and "empty strings"? Why not do a select that avoids extracting records with NULL's when you don't want them?
Traditionally the "missing data" hassles are pushed all the way from data collection to front end so that the original data (or lack of) is not lost. One rarely knows what a user may want to display in the future and rewritting the front end is simpler than rewriting the whole fucking thing.
"String theory doesn't predict anything. Its not testable. Its not science. Its caused some interesting advances in math to solve certain aspects of it, but thats about it."
I agree, and until it makes a testable prediction it will remain as pure maths (or metaphysics if you like that turn of phrase better). This doesn't mean it's a waste of time nor does it mean that it will always be untestable, it just means that right now it is not science.
Invest in Australia, we have paddocks bigger than that. :)
Cold fussion claims have been extensively tested, the results are not repeatable, if there is any effect at all is is too small to be of any use in power generation. Now stop being lazy and do some research for yourself.
Who knows? I certainly don't. Do you? Last I checked those possibilities are as plausible as any others.
The fact that all new ideas have equal weight is why the scientific method was created in the first place, do you have a better system for sorting the shit from the clay or do you just "rage against the machine" because it doesn't agree with your bias?
"You fail to provide any support for your claim that I am being unrealistic. I on the other hand have brought ample examples of corrupt and bias manner of things in the real world. You seem to deny those things, again, without providing a reason. I am forced to conclude that it is you who are exhibiting childlike naitivity and ignoring the real nature of a harsh unfair world."
Yeah, the world is unfair and everyone who does not agree with you is incapable of thinking, yet I look up from my navel and can see the fruits of science all around me. The crackpot attitude you display is born from the arrogant assumption that you are capable of judging something that you freely admit you know nothing about.
""IANAP". I'll definitely remember that one. That's so emblematic of the whole problem. I'm not a physicist. I couldn't possibly understand these things because *they* told me so."
IANA surgeon either, the difference between you and me is that I belive the system "works" and ask questions, you belive the system is slanted against you but would demand a qualified surgeon anyway.
"Like I said before, think for yourself. If more people were doing that, then we'd all be better off"
Would you agree "thinking for myself" would include not swallowing the assertions in a slashdot post simply because the authour insults my intelligence?
BTW: The electric universe theory is not you "thinking for yourself" it is simply repeating someone else's theory. The EU theory uses real observations to attack imaginary problems in physics/cosmology and completely crushes the straw man it builds, so what? I repeat, show me any peer-reviewed article on the electric universe theory and maybe I will be encouraged to spend some time on it.
Like I said IANAP but I do have a BSc, the reason I don't want to look into your theory (apart from it chewing up time) is twofold.
1. You support it by claiming a conspiracy of silence and disparaging others in the field.
2. You are confused about what the current theories actually say, ie: you are attacking a straw-man.
The only method by which you will get scientists to look at your theory seriously is the scientific method and in practice that means peer-review. Can you point to any peer-reviewed papers that describe your pet theory or is it all just star-trek speak?
"Of course, since the very idea of cold fusion is laughable nobody who DOES have the proper instrumentation will take a closer look."
Oh, so cold fusion works and it's just that nobody bothered to check? What next the oil company bought the patent, grow up and join the real world.
PS: I like to aim my crackpots here using this handy myth-busting search
"Well, what if it's rather difficult to get a tenure-track job as a climatologist if you don't advocate the consensus view?"
The job description for any research scientist requires you to attack the status-quo not defend it, if you don't know what the status-quo is then you unlikely to be of much use, are you?
What happens, then, if it's difficult to get a contrarian article into a peer-reviewed journal? That's often the case, as it happens. For someone with results that cut against the grain, it can take years to break through the peer review wall, assuming you're able to keep going that long.
Yes, it took science 20yrs to fully accept AGW, it has taken a further decade to convince the likes of Bush, Murdoch and Howard. The "extrodinary claim" of AGW's "hockey stick" (circa 1980) has indeed been supported by "extrodinary evidence". Thousands of scientists started saying "look out" 10yrs ago, frustration at the willfully deaf for the (temporary?) political stagnation they have created is understandable in my books. It is abudantly clear that we need clean substitutes for fossil fuels and we need 'em fast!
"This isn't unique to climatology - I've seen other situations in which a highly charged issue that has many believers on one side can squeeze out any last dissent."
This is a straw-man, there is vigourous debate on all sorts of issues (eg: missing methane, tipping points, what hurricanes?). Nobody has yet come up with a better theory than AGW to explain the observed changes in 20th century climate and there have been an avalanche of claims for ~30yrs now, none (or is it one?) of these claims has passed peer-review in the least 10yrs, this simply indicates every contra-claimant has failed to account for "something" not that every contra-claimaint is wrong. Is it hard for a discredited status-quo to rise agian? Damm right it is!!!
Although there is vigourous debate, scientific models allow us to test competing ideas via prediction rather than a direct experiment on a single entity (the climate or the economy), AGW has passed this test many times and continues to improve. The Stern report shows AGW is also taken seriously by hard nosed economists from the Friedman school of Thatcherisim. For policy makers to ignore this wealth of research into an observable phenomena is a waste of taxpayer funds and tantamount to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and singling la-la-la.
I agree there are very few Einstein's. The idea of a Phd is to show others you can comprehend and intelligently question the "state of the art" in your chosen field and few have done that as devastatingly as Albert and his "three pager". The documented ability to sucessfully attack the status-quo using the scientific method is what an applicant for tenure must have, an academic institution's "pre$tige" relies on their ability to recognise people who can attack the status-quo, it is in the institution's own self interest to avoid "me-too-ism".
So yes, there is an "institutional bias" toward hiring people who at least seem to know what "it" is they are supposed to attack. I also belive hospitals suffer from a similar "institutional bias" when hiring surgeons.