The thing is, I trust RMS more than I trust you, or for that matter, myself in looking out for the way commercial interests can abuse the system. As I'm sure you've heard by now, the "free market" is like a free fox in a free henhouse. That you can cite some examples where abuse hasn't occurred, is not enough to be convincing, IMHO.
The issue here is that Stallman is really the only one that completely "gets" it. He's only one person and he can't be everywhere and do everything. He has a clear and consistent vision but it's not without its subtleties and I don't get the sense there's anyone out there with sufficient understanding that could replace him or even extend his reach. I think we've been lucky to have him around but have the feeling our luck may not hold out indefinately.
It also had J. Edgar, COINTELPRO, Watergate, MkUltra, a bunch of fun stuff that wasn't quite consistent with the Constitution. Sometimes when looking back selective memory gives the impression things were better than they were.
The problem with this is, money has the power and it's controlling both sides. Where the "two sides" disagree is mostly irrelevant. Where they agree is where the trouble is. You don't hear dissenting voices on the important issues, just voices that are dissenting over trivial ones. While they've got you focussed on raising the minimum wage a relative pittance, arguing over the ACA, or worrying about immigrants stealing jobs you don't want to do, you're not thinking about why no one has gone to jail over the banking crisis, or why the ACA is doing little to control costs, why the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are still making out like bandits, or why money has such undue influence over our political process. In the terms of the Prestidigitators, it's called "misdirection". While they've got your attention on one hand, it's the other one that's doing the funny business.
Nice try. You obviously didn't watch the video. If you had you'd realize Jerry Mitrovica specifically covers your bogus claims. You also didn't read the page you referenced very carefully. There is no conflict here. For most of the 20th century the rate has been about 2.5mm, in the last 20 years it's been closer to 3.5mm. And for the 2000 years prior to the 20th century it's been virtually zero. And from that page itself you can see that it's about regional not global measurements:
The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend.
And there are global graphs linked to from that page that are the same as used in the video that show a relatively constant global rise since 1992. Jerry points out you need at least 30 years. So he puts it in context over the last century and the last 2000 years, where the increase is clear.
More importantly, they have to PUBLISH THEIR FUCKING RESULTS. Whining about "publication bias" just doesn't cut it without evidence of it-- they need to at least make an ATTEMPT to publish, and if it gets rejected for scientifically invalid reasons, that would be important evidence. Most papers get rejected for formatting, and upon resubmission often are accepted. The exception is when a journal is overwhelmed with submissions-- some have taken to provide "pay-to-publish" avenues to solve this, a controversial practice to be sure, but not equivalent to scientific bias by any means, certainly not without better evidence.
Denialists that believe they have important climate evidence should put their money where their mouth is and submit it. When they don't, they get labelled crackpots and rightfully so. Even Spencer understands this-- his critique is for the most part limited to the actual impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but he doesn't whine about publication bias-- he publishes in the journals because its the scientists he wants to communicate his info to, not blog-writing crackpots.
And if you don't think sea level has been rising uncharacteristically in the last few decades you need to watch this video of a talk by one of the experts in the subject who has travelled the world studying the multiple independent lines of evidence that confirms it. He's also an expert on long term sea level history-- it's been nearly flat for some 10,000 years, and in the last 100 has been on an upswing. You may disagree with why it's rising, but make no mistake, it's rising.
Is it? Between 1991 and 2012 there were some 13,000 articles on climate, of which 24 denied global warming. So at least SOME articles counter to global warming get published. But if there are many more that were rejected for no valid scientific reasons, who is collecting the examples of these? By now there should be enough for a journal of their own and would be a huge scandal as examples of science systematically ignored. But the Creationists argued publication bias in a court case years ago, and the judge asked to see one of these rejected papers. None were found, they had no examples. They were talking out of their hat. In fact, on doing some searching, a few papers WERE found, and they had actually been published. There's also a well known study where completely bogus papers were submitted and were published, that itself somewhat of a scandal. So I'm sorry, but claiming publication bias without evidence just doesn't wash.
It may be solved from the engineering standpoint, but it won't be "solved" until Home Depot has a comparison display in-store so you can figure out which one to buy...
For one thing, my hobby is traditional photography. I'm concerned about the availability and cost of photofloods and enlarger bulbs. Also, slide projector bulbs. These things are dissappearing even without the energy laws.
This is supposed to make us feel better? That instead of taking money to undermine security they were duped into it? Aren't they saying here, that they didn't knowingly undermine encryption, they were simply incompetent? These guys are toast in any case, time to turn the lights off and go home...
Any terrorists worth worrying about won't have trusted phone communications, no doubt on the rare occasions they actually use it for nefarious purposes they talk in code.
Ads in twitter? I don't see any of this. I don't use a general web browser for twitter at all though. FB on the other hand, I do see "suggested posts", and I don't use a browser there either. So it's certainly possible but I've not seen it yet on twitter.
It doesn't matter, they can connect the separate sandbox sessions through the login credentials you use at various sites, credentials that are universally tied to an email address. Unless you use a different email address with every separately sandboxed app, you're wasting your time.
Well, considering most of it is stored in pools at the reactor sites which are mostly on the coastline which will be most affected by sea level rise, if we leave it all there we can kiss the ocean goodbye as a food source before long. And of course we haven't been able to move it anywhere for political reasons, that is why it's stuck where it is now for the most part. Over half of all nuclear accidents have occurred in the USA. Reactors are targets in military conflicts and potential terrorist targets. Fukushima is just the latest in a line of nuclear disasters. And there are people who are not insane that would like to build dozens more such sites to multiply our capacity and most importantly, our RISK? Read some of the details of past disasters and you'll see that we are simply not competent enough to manage the technology. On paper, perhaps, but not in practice.
Scientific publication is how science proceeds. It's how scientists communicate. Some countries and organizations encourage that better than others. When I find a paper that's paywalled, I know there's a good chance I may be able to find a similar paper from the UK or elsewhere where "publication" is seen as a means for scientists to communicate, rather than to get rich selling their papers. Scientists who publish in paywalled-only journals may find they aren't communicating as well as those who are able to be more open with their results. This could negatively impact their careers. This is not the same as the mechanism of nonscientific publications where making money from the reader for the author is the primary goal. There's a conflict of interest here and I'm afraid it doesn't bode well for the scientific journals. They are no longer the most effective and lowest cost means od disseminating scientific information. The observation of the "Kodak moment" is an apt one.
They're only recommending things be filtered differently, not that they should not be filtered at all. Useless. I prefer to use an anonymizing search engine, and browsers that do a better job of it would also be a help. The problem is to remove any ability for a site to know anything about the user at all, not to just be "nicer" about how they filter based on what they know.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, I trust RMS more than I trust you, or for that matter, myself in looking out for the way commercial interests can abuse the system. As I'm sure you've heard by now, the "free market" is like a free fox in a free henhouse. That you can cite some examples where abuse hasn't occurred, is not enough to be convincing, IMHO.
The issue here is that Stallman is really the only one that completely "gets" it. He's only one person and he can't be everywhere and do everything. He has a clear and consistent vision but it's not without its subtleties and I don't get the sense there's anyone out there with sufficient understanding that could replace him or even extend his reach. I think we've been lucky to have him around but have the feeling our luck may not hold out indefinately.
It also had J. Edgar, COINTELPRO, Watergate, MkUltra, a bunch of fun stuff that wasn't quite consistent with the Constitution. Sometimes when looking back selective memory gives the impression things were better than they were.
If ABC wants me to watch their junk they'll have to pay ME. My eyeballs are not free.
The problem with this is, money has the power and it's controlling both sides. Where the "two sides" disagree is mostly irrelevant. Where they agree is where the trouble is. You don't hear dissenting voices on the important issues, just voices that are dissenting over trivial ones. While they've got you focussed on raising the minimum wage a relative pittance, arguing over the ACA, or worrying about immigrants stealing jobs you don't want to do, you're not thinking about why no one has gone to jail over the banking crisis, or why the ACA is doing little to control costs, why the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are still making out like bandits, or why money has such undue influence over our political process. In the terms of the Prestidigitators, it's called "misdirection". While they've got your attention on one hand, it's the other one that's doing the funny business.
Nice try. You obviously didn't watch the video. If you had you'd realize Jerry Mitrovica specifically covers your bogus claims. You also didn't read the page you referenced very carefully. There is no conflict here. For most of the 20th century the rate has been about 2.5mm, in the last 20 years it's been closer to 3.5mm. And for the 2000 years prior to the 20th century it's been virtually zero. And from that page itself you can see that it's about regional not global measurements:
The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend.
And there are global graphs linked to from that page that are the same as used in the video that show a relatively constant global rise since 1992. Jerry points out you need at least 30 years. So he puts it in context over the last century and the last 2000 years, where the increase is clear.
More importantly, they have to PUBLISH THEIR FUCKING RESULTS. Whining about "publication bias" just doesn't cut it without evidence of it-- they need to at least make an ATTEMPT to publish, and if it gets rejected for scientifically invalid reasons, that would be important evidence. Most papers get rejected for formatting, and upon resubmission often are accepted. The exception is when a journal is overwhelmed with submissions-- some have taken to provide "pay-to-publish" avenues to solve this, a controversial practice to be sure, but not equivalent to scientific bias by any means, certainly not without better evidence.
Denialists that believe they have important climate evidence should put their money where their mouth is and submit it. When they don't, they get labelled crackpots and rightfully so. Even Spencer understands this-- his critique is for the most part limited to the actual impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but he doesn't whine about publication bias-- he publishes in the journals because its the scientists he wants to communicate his info to, not blog-writing crackpots.
And if you don't think sea level has been rising uncharacteristically in the last few decades you need to watch this video of a talk by one of the experts in the subject who has travelled the world studying the multiple independent lines of evidence that confirms it. He's also an expert on long term sea level history-- it's been nearly flat for some 10,000 years, and in the last 100 has been on an upswing. You may disagree with why it's rising, but make no mistake, it's rising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w
Yes, publication bias is a huge problem.
Is it? Between 1991 and 2012 there were some 13,000 articles on climate, of which 24 denied global warming. So at least SOME articles counter to global warming get published. But if there are many more that were rejected for no valid scientific reasons, who is collecting the examples of these? By now there should be enough for a journal of their own and would be a huge scandal as examples of science systematically ignored. But the Creationists argued publication bias in a court case years ago, and the judge asked to see one of these rejected papers. None were found, they had no examples. They were talking out of their hat. In fact, on doing some searching, a few papers WERE found, and they had actually been published. There's also a well known study where completely bogus papers were submitted and were published, that itself somewhat of a scandal. So I'm sorry, but claiming publication bias without evidence just doesn't wash.
It may be solved from the engineering standpoint, but it won't be "solved" until Home Depot has a comparison display in-store so you can figure out which one to buy...
For one thing, my hobby is traditional photography. I'm concerned about the availability and cost of photofloods and enlarger bulbs. Also, slide projector bulbs. These things are dissappearing even without the energy laws.
This is supposed to make us feel better? That instead of taking money to undermine security they were duped into it? Aren't they saying here, that they didn't knowingly undermine encryption, they were simply incompetent? These guys are toast in any case, time to turn the lights off and go home...
Any terrorists worth worrying about won't have trusted phone communications, no doubt on the rare occasions they actually use it for nefarious purposes they talk in code.
Ads in twitter? I don't see any of this. I don't use a general web browser for twitter at all though. FB on the other hand, I do see "suggested posts", and I don't use a browser there either. So it's certainly possible but I've not seen it yet on twitter.
Overloading them with useless data is the best approach.
It doesn't matter, they can connect the separate sandbox sessions through the login credentials you use at various sites, credentials that are universally tied to an email address. Unless you use a different email address with every separately sandboxed app, you're wasting your time.
There's several copies of me on FB. If you can't keep them from collecting data on you, overload them with redundant and irrelevant information.
Well, considering most of it is stored in pools at the reactor sites which are mostly on the coastline which will be most affected by sea level rise, if we leave it all there we can kiss the ocean goodbye as a food source before long. And of course we haven't been able to move it anywhere for political reasons, that is why it's stuck where it is now for the most part. Over half of all nuclear accidents have occurred in the USA. Reactors are targets in military conflicts and potential terrorist targets. Fukushima is just the latest in a line of nuclear disasters. And there are people who are not insane that would like to build dozens more such sites to multiply our capacity and most importantly, our RISK? Read some of the details of past disasters and you'll see that we are simply not competent enough to manage the technology. On paper, perhaps, but not in practice.
This doesn't bode well for any sense of social psychology they might have.
For example, here's a good discussion of some the adverse effects surveillance has on society: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.br/2013/12/why-privacy-power-of-mind-over-mind.html?m=1
I would think wearing one of these things would itself be stress-inducing. A bra that nags?
Scientific publication is how science proceeds. It's how scientists communicate. Some countries and organizations encourage that better than others. When I find a paper that's paywalled, I know there's a good chance I may be able to find a similar paper from the UK or elsewhere where "publication" is seen as a means for scientists to communicate, rather than to get rich selling their papers. Scientists who publish in paywalled-only journals may find they aren't communicating as well as those who are able to be more open with their results. This could negatively impact their careers. This is not the same as the mechanism of nonscientific publications where making money from the reader for the author is the primary goal. There's a conflict of interest here and I'm afraid it doesn't bode well for the scientific journals. They are no longer the most effective and lowest cost means od disseminating scientific information. The observation of the "Kodak moment" is an apt one.
Never mind the weather, LA is supposed to be ripe for a 7.0 earthquake. In Seattle, it's a 10.0, and the city is half sunken already.
Yeah, and your resume will have no local experience on it. It'll be rather obvious you're not local even with a Seattle number, won't it?
Sounds rather like the GOP strategy against Obamacare...
They're only recommending things be filtered differently, not that they should not be filtered at all. Useless. I prefer to use an anonymizing search engine, and browsers that do a better job of it would also be a help. The problem is to remove any ability for a site to know anything about the user at all, not to just be "nicer" about how they filter based on what they know.