No, the poster was clearly asking to back a very specific assertion, namely that many scenarios have already been proven wrong, which is the claim that needs to be proven.
I also don't accept your claim that the claim must be bullet proof. The expected costs and values can be a combination of likelihood and significance of the effects. If the effects are dire enough and the likelihood not sufficiently remote then it becomes a bad value to not make those changes even accounting for the costs they incur.
Besides, a lot of the money being spent isn't just being thrown into a hole and buried, it'll have positive effects as well even if they don't completely offset the effects you're concerned about.
In what sense is it crucial to lay out the steps to get to each assertion when summarizing the proof? Further, the specific item in question is probably one where if you didn't know it, you're probably not going to be able to delve into the details of the proof anyway, so it seems to me to be a perfect candidate for summarizing here. This article/proof isn't about the Uncertainty principle, its implications are just enabling concepts/steps so summarizing them out of the way seems like the only sensible choice here, right? If you can't summarize the steps used in the proof, what can you summarize?
Are you suggesting that the summary doesn't faithful reproduce every detail of the thing it's summarizing? If only we had a word to describe glossing over details to give people a sense of what something says, preferably in a fairly succinct way.
Whether polygraphs work or not depends on what you want them to do. You may not be able to say for sure that a person is lying or not, but if you're using it as one tool in a suite to decide if someone is worthy of trust it can be effective. You may rule out some people that you could have trusted, but if you're ruling out people you shouldn't trust it's a good tool. You may trust some people you shouldn't still, but that's why it's not the only tool you use.
And I think they'll still get plenty of recruits because a) there are some people who think that helping the government is a worthwhile pursuit and b) if you have a special qualification in any job (e.g., hold a security clearance) you can generally make more money than someone who doesn't have that qualification.
The people presenting are not professional presenters, they're researchers communicating their research. They should not be replaced because they're not great presenters, that's not what their job is. If a tool gets in the way more often than it helps, it should probably be removed. Further, this article suggests that it's the audience's fault at least in part since they consume a presentation differently when there's a PowerPoint presentation rather than a chalkboard talk. Should we also get a better audience?
Regarding linux, I think we can evaluate each of the platforms against their claims/goals (as I understand them at least) and avoid your suggested hypocrisy. Linux is often a platform where you combine tools. Billed as such getting the right tool to do what you want is expected and things that get in the way of doing what you want (like the outcry when Gnome 3 came out for example) are disparaged.
Windows, however, is trying to provide (and is charging a fair amount for) a slick, usable interface to your computer. If it fails at that, and you have to get other tools to work around that, then they are not delivering on their claims and should be decried for it.
Each evaluated on its own terms can have different expectations and not involve hypocrisy.
Ok, how about we say it's a horribly designed car then? I suppose it all depends on what you're looking to get out of the car, if you want a super car you probably are willing to sacrifice some aesthetics and usability for performance. If, however, you are designing a car for mass consumption and make it awkward for a lot of people to use then you've made a horrible car for your intended purpose. The rest of the engineering may be great, but if you fail at your goal, you've built something horrible for its intended purpose at the very least.
If your computer makes it harder to use the computer, as metro does for most of us it seems, you've made a horrible OS. That you can turn it off is a step toward redemption, but I've yet to be convinced over the last year of using it that windows 8 is as easy to use as XP or win 7 was.
It's the equivalent of saying X model of car is absolutely horrible because you don't like the layout of the dash.
Isn't that a perfectly legitimate reason to not buy a car? If you think the car is unattractive or laid out such that it will make things harder for you to do/use you should probably consider other options. If the way you primarily interact with the car (i.e., the dash) doesn't work for you you're probably not going to have a good experience in that car very often, and thus for you at least it is a horrible car.
In fact, isn't the layout of the dash one of the frequently reviewed aspects of cars? I agree with your analogy, but apparently not your conclusion.
As the AC also observed I don't think that discounting an explanation in one specific situation means it never applies, is that actually what you're suggesting? I'd also point out that "no food at home" is only one possible effect of impacts on food production, which will also likely reduce employment in the area (if there are no crops to harvest), and surely it's not controversial to correlate unemployment rate and crime rate, is it?
Well I'm glad you thoroughly debunked the idea that higher temperatures and higher crime rates are in fact correlated.
Of course, this study produced in 1989 before global warming alarmism was really ramped up suggesting this question has been around for a long time (especially considering it sites papers from 1899) includs the following quote:
The
studies
of
geographic
region
temperature
effects
on
aggression
provide
impressive
support
for
the
temperature-aggression
hypothesis.
And are you in fact sure that no AGW supporters commented on the CNN anchor's comment? It didn't seem all that hard to find at least a couple of sites mentioning the topic and suggesting that Bill Nye was polite enough not to mention the absurd segue question.
Whether the droughts are in fact related to global warming or not, farmers in California may disagree with your point. For many, their ability to produce food this year at least is very definitely down (and I've seen the effects in grocery stores in the north east). Net production may be up, but that has no bearing on whether it is down in specific areas where crime may go up. That's of course the point of my observation that some places will have production go up and some will have it go down.
I don't think it should be surprising if changes in climate affect the behavior of people in areas. If food becomes more plentiful I bet crime goes down. If food and water become more scarce I bet it goes up. If the weather patterns are changing surely some areas are going to get drier and some are going to get wetter. Also, as events become more extreme all the extreme weather events you sited are likely to happen more often too, don't you think? So you're right, global warming almost certainly is doing all those things.
I don't see why it's controversial to think that. Even if you don't think people have anything to do with changing climate all those effects are obvious outcomes of it changing, and I don't think many people actually doubt that it is changing.
Apparently the concept of making all weather more extreme has been lost here. That would mean winter storms will be more extreme as well. Perhaps it's hard to imagine why global warming would make more snow in some areas, but failures of some people's imagination doesn't make something less true.
Also, if we're talking about the gravy train, don't the people emitting greenhouse gasses have a much larger financial stake than the scientists researching it? I doubt all the climate research funding world wide was equal to even Exxon's profits last year.
Sure, if those agencies working on it asked for help or followed best practices that are recommend by NSA and others. I suspect neither of those things happened. The NSA doesn't generally barge into other efforts and demand they do it their way, uh, well, at least the defensive side of the house doesn't.
They do that. There are 2 sides to the NSA, and one of them does what you suggest, but not only with government. They're the ones that helped produce SE Linux after all.
I don't think that CS brought about the advent of "nerds" nor that engineers were exempt from that label in the past. I'd actually see your EE tale as entirely compatible with the CS situation, not a counter example.
The line about the "type of boys" is somewhat disingenuous I think. It's not unreasonable for someone to recognize that a group is likely to make life harder for your or generally less enjoyable and want to avoid that group. If that group is overrepresented in a particular field, it's not unreasonable to avoid that field. Even the first comment, it's not that there are no decent guys in CS, but if they are underrepresented then their presence may be of little comfort when deciding whether being in that class will make you happier or not. This is especially so when weighing other options where you may find that people who will be nice to you are more highly represented. It's not only women who do this, I suspect we all do to varying degrees, and probably not always consciously.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of an expression I'm now quite fond of:
And how often do you start a meeting with introducing these agenda? After all, the meeting will cover each agendum in turn.
advanced placement, they're courses in High School where if you score well enough on the final exam you can often get college credit
This seems to highlight the reasons behind the All Trials movement: http://www.alltrials.net/
In this case the "place to be searched" is described as their gmail account, right?
No, the poster was clearly asking to back a very specific assertion, namely that many scenarios have already been proven wrong, which is the claim that needs to be proven.
I also don't accept your claim that the claim must be bullet proof. The expected costs and values can be a combination of likelihood and significance of the effects. If the effects are dire enough and the likelihood not sufficiently remote then it becomes a bad value to not make those changes even accounting for the costs they incur.
Besides, a lot of the money being spent isn't just being thrown into a hole and buried, it'll have positive effects as well even if they don't completely offset the effects you're concerned about.
In what sense is it crucial to lay out the steps to get to each assertion when summarizing the proof? Further, the specific item in question is probably one where if you didn't know it, you're probably not going to be able to delve into the details of the proof anyway, so it seems to me to be a perfect candidate for summarizing here. This article/proof isn't about the Uncertainty principle, its implications are just enabling concepts/steps so summarizing them out of the way seems like the only sensible choice here, right? If you can't summarize the steps used in the proof, what can you summarize?
Are you suggesting that the summary doesn't faithful reproduce every detail of the thing it's summarizing? If only we had a word to describe glossing over details to give people a sense of what something says, preferably in a fairly succinct way.
Oops, htmled myself, I mean nslookup [host] [server]
Well, you could always try nslookup from a shell to see if it resolves with different servers
Whether polygraphs work or not depends on what you want them to do. You may not be able to say for sure that a person is lying or not, but if you're using it as one tool in a suite to decide if someone is worthy of trust it can be effective. You may rule out some people that you could have trusted, but if you're ruling out people you shouldn't trust it's a good tool. You may trust some people you shouldn't still, but that's why it's not the only tool you use.
And I think they'll still get plenty of recruits because a) there are some people who think that helping the government is a worthwhile pursuit and b) if you have a special qualification in any job (e.g., hold a security clearance) you can generally make more money than someone who doesn't have that qualification.
The people presenting are not professional presenters, they're researchers communicating their research. They should not be replaced because they're not great presenters, that's not what their job is. If a tool gets in the way more often than it helps, it should probably be removed. Further, this article suggests that it's the audience's fault at least in part since they consume a presentation differently when there's a PowerPoint presentation rather than a chalkboard talk. Should we also get a better audience?
Regarding linux, I think we can evaluate each of the platforms against their claims/goals (as I understand them at least) and avoid your suggested hypocrisy. Linux is often a platform where you combine tools. Billed as such getting the right tool to do what you want is expected and things that get in the way of doing what you want (like the outcry when Gnome 3 came out for example) are disparaged.
Windows, however, is trying to provide (and is charging a fair amount for) a slick, usable interface to your computer. If it fails at that, and you have to get other tools to work around that, then they are not delivering on their claims and should be decried for it.
Each evaluated on its own terms can have different expectations and not involve hypocrisy.
Ok, how about we say it's a horribly designed car then? I suppose it all depends on what you're looking to get out of the car, if you want a super car you probably are willing to sacrifice some aesthetics and usability for performance. If, however, you are designing a car for mass consumption and make it awkward for a lot of people to use then you've made a horrible car for your intended purpose. The rest of the engineering may be great, but if you fail at your goal, you've built something horrible for its intended purpose at the very least.
If your computer makes it harder to use the computer, as metro does for most of us it seems, you've made a horrible OS. That you can turn it off is a step toward redemption, but I've yet to be convinced over the last year of using it that windows 8 is as easy to use as XP or win 7 was.
Isn't that a perfectly legitimate reason to not buy a car? If you think the car is unattractive or laid out such that it will make things harder for you to do/use you should probably consider other options. If the way you primarily interact with the car (i.e., the dash) doesn't work for you you're probably not going to have a good experience in that car very often, and thus for you at least it is a horrible car.
In fact, isn't the layout of the dash one of the frequently reviewed aspects of cars? I agree with your analogy, but apparently not your conclusion.
As the AC also observed I don't think that discounting an explanation in one specific situation means it never applies, is that actually what you're suggesting? I'd also point out that "no food at home" is only one possible effect of impacts on food production, which will also likely reduce employment in the area (if there are no crops to harvest), and surely it's not controversial to correlate unemployment rate and crime rate, is it?
Well I'm glad you thoroughly debunked the idea that higher temperatures and higher crime rates are in fact correlated.
Of course, this study produced in 1989 before global warming alarmism was really ramped up suggesting this question has been around for a long time (especially considering it sites papers from 1899) includs the following quote:
And are you in fact sure that no AGW supporters commented on the CNN anchor's comment? It didn't seem all that hard to find at least a couple of sites mentioning the topic and suggesting that Bill Nye was polite enough not to mention the absurd segue question.
Whether the droughts are in fact related to global warming or not, farmers in California may disagree with your point. For many, their ability to produce food this year at least is very definitely down (and I've seen the effects in grocery stores in the north east). Net production may be up, but that has no bearing on whether it is down in specific areas where crime may go up. That's of course the point of my observation that some places will have production go up and some will have it go down.
I don't think it should be surprising if changes in climate affect the behavior of people in areas. If food becomes more plentiful I bet crime goes down. If food and water become more scarce I bet it goes up. If the weather patterns are changing surely some areas are going to get drier and some are going to get wetter. Also, as events become more extreme all the extreme weather events you sited are likely to happen more often too, don't you think? So you're right, global warming almost certainly is doing all those things.
I don't see why it's controversial to think that. Even if you don't think people have anything to do with changing climate all those effects are obvious outcomes of it changing, and I don't think many people actually doubt that it is changing.
Apparently the concept of making all weather more extreme has been lost here. That would mean winter storms will be more extreme as well. Perhaps it's hard to imagine why global warming would make more snow in some areas, but failures of some people's imagination doesn't make something less true.
Also, if we're talking about the gravy train, don't the people emitting greenhouse gasses have a much larger financial stake than the scientists researching it? I doubt all the climate research funding world wide was equal to even Exxon's profits last year.
Sure, if those agencies working on it asked for help or followed best practices that are recommend by NSA and others. I suspect neither of those things happened. The NSA doesn't generally barge into other efforts and demand they do it their way, uh, well, at least the defensive side of the house doesn't.
They do that. There are 2 sides to the NSA, and one of them does what you suggest, but not only with government. They're the ones that helped produce SE Linux after all.
I don't think that CS brought about the advent of "nerds" nor that engineers were exempt from that label in the past. I'd actually see your EE tale as entirely compatible with the CS situation, not a counter example.
The line about the "type of boys" is somewhat disingenuous I think. It's not unreasonable for someone to recognize that a group is likely to make life harder for your or generally less enjoyable and want to avoid that group. If that group is overrepresented in a particular field, it's not unreasonable to avoid that field. Even the first comment, it's not that there are no decent guys in CS, but if they are underrepresented then their presence may be of little comfort when deciding whether being in that class will make you happier or not. This is especially so when weighing other options where you may find that people who will be nice to you are more highly represented. It's not only women who do this, I suspect we all do to varying degrees, and probably not always consciously.
They can be influential in certain spheres even while not in others.