As to whether or not the denials were legitimate: assume that the the denials were not legitimate. At that point, what would a claimant do? They would follow up on the FOI claim. There is no evidence that this happened. The argument from silence isn't the strongest, but when you're dealing with people who are normally as loud as these climate change denialists, silence can be deafening.
They "lost" the raw data pursuant to their contract with the UK National Meteorological Service, which stated that they must delete the raw data when they were done with it.
Further, the head of the CRU did not "announce" that he would delete "such" data. He said, in a private e-mail, that he would rather delete a different data set than see it in the hands of people who would mis-use it. This data was not deleted, and the plan to spam the CRU with FOIA requests was not successful in attaining the data.
Seriously, just because they're both "data" doesn't mean that they're the same data. I don't understand why people have a problem with this.
Evading a legitimate FOIA request? Do you, perhaps, mean the 50-ish FOIA requests that the CRU received over the course of two days, each one taking probably an hour or two of their legal counsel's time to process? That were, in fact, legitimately denied? Sure, one of the scientists said that he'd rather delete the data than give it to the people who spammed them with "legitimate" FOIA requests - but those FOIA requests were not granted (and funnily enough, none of the people submitting those FOIA requests followed up on them through legal channels), and the data was not deleted.
The rest of your claims are similarly uninformed. Who's not paying attention here?
Movie theaters are actually one of the few exceptions; although it's not a legal requirement, you basically can't get movies for your theater unless you sign a contract with (I think) the MPAA that says you'll follow the age restrictions. A movie theater that allows unaccompanied minors into R rated movies as a matter of policy will either shape up or go out of business.
In a free market, value is determined by supply and demand.
Sooooo... what happens when supply goes up to infinity? When, for instance, you can create a copy of the good for $epsilon?
Further, what happens when the physical supply is zero? For instance, Song of the South - its value to Disney is $0, because it is simply no longer for sale. How much are you stealing from Disney if you pirate something they refuse to sell?
Congratulations, you've missed the point entirely. It's just a silly name for a centralized means of donating to good open-source projects. (You also get a fun certificate out of it.)
And if you tell that dialog "I want to burn these files to the CD", you'll get a CD that only works on other Windows computers. By default, Windows does not burn CDs in a manner compatible with anything but Windows. That's so much more user friendly than Linux or OSX, because everyone loves the mystery of "why doesn't this CD work on my friend's mac?"
22.6 million in grants since 1990? That's a fucking travesty. That's about 1.1 million a year to run a lab, pay wages, buy equipment, purchase services, pay for facilities, and fund all of those other things you need to do to do science - they must be running on a near-shoestring budget, and this is some of the most important research on Earth right now.
Oh wait was I supposed to be aghast that the man personally received millions of dollars in grants? That's not the way it works; you really don't get rich doing science.
... the credentials of the people arguing any specific case are not what he cares about. These are his points:
* All software is data.
* All software is discovered and not invented.
* All software is abstract.
* All software is mathematics.
In order to support those claims, he wrote the entire rest of the post. That's why he went on to "ramble about Godel's numbers, and Turing Machines" - to provide the basis for these claims. He doesn't just leave those assertions hanging; the rest of the post is directed towards proving that they are true.
I'm pretty sure you're one of those programmers whose eyes glaze over when people start talking about Turing Machines and currying, but seriously - the theoretical aspects of Computer Science can be very important.
Most obviously, how does a new artist get started this way, when he doesn't have any fans yet? Are consumers expected to start pledging to random people on the off-chance that they produce a good result? There is nothing to stop someone adopting this approach today. How many artists have successfully started a career by doing so?
How does Costco get you to try food you otherwise might not? Free samples. You pledge to someone because you like the free stuff they've put on their website already, and you want to see more of it.
So they said they would delete the data(a) rather than give it up. And the said they would hide behind non-disclosure agreements so they wouldn't have to give up the data(a). And they said they got other universities and government agencies to go along with hiding the data(a). But you think we should still give them the benefit of the doubt and believe their story that they just accidentally lost the data(b).
I have tagged your comment. data(a) is one set of data. data(b) is a different set of data. Just because they're both "data" doesn't mean they're the same data.
Example: "I'd rather drink this wine than give it to you." "Well where's those grapes you had in 1980?" "I made them into this wine and discarded the husks." "Hah! So that means you ate the grapes!" "What? That makes no sense, and anyway the national vintological service has clones if you want them."
So yes, we should believe them. Why would you keep massive amounts of raw data, when someone else has copies of it?
... and obviously the deletion didn't happen, because you have this e-mail. Someone acting hastily is not a felony if wiser heads prevail and no action is taken, and it's entirely possible he didn't know that you're not supposed to delete data that's subject to a current FoI request - he's a scientist, not a lawyer. (also, the fact that the FoI requests were not granted should tell you something about their vexatious nature).
A moron who has to store petabytes of raw climate data in 1998? Disk space was nowhere near as cheap back then as it is now, and the raw data is still on record with the originating meteorological service. Why not delete it? Anyone who wants it can get a copy from the original source.
... and how exactly will they send you that threat? If they can privately transmit this message to you, they can find you. If they're willing to broadcast that message, you're both going to die if you give yourself up.
Yeah - if you ever watch anything like "Snapped" or those other TV shows that detail the events of actual police cases, you'll see that they invariably go like this:
A crime is committed, be it murder, assault or robbery.
The police look in to it.
The police find nothing for a couple of months.
(optional) The police continue to find nothing for several years.
Someone else hands the police the case on a silver platter (someone feels guilty decides to confess, someone finds the gun, etc)
Police claim victory.
Seriously, detectives who actually solve crimes are in the minority, and why not? Who needs to solve violent crime, when you can just spend your time tracking down non-violent criminals?
You made me vaguely excited when you said that Galcon is a "better version of the Stars! idea". Pity it isn't - after trying Galcon, I have to say that statement is equivalent to saying Risk is a better version of the Warhammer 40k idea. They're entirely different in terms of simulation scope and detail.
Honestly, it seems like Galcon is basically the same game as Eufloria, with a different skin.
Actually, there is something similar that occurs in software, called "bit rot". The older a piece of software is, the more security vulnerabilities have likely been found in it, making it a bigger and bigger target so long as it is in continued use...
That is entirely not what bit rot means. The canonical definition is here. You may be referring to software rot, but it doesn't really mean that either, since both refer to software that hasn't been used for a while and obviously does not apply to Windows.
Or maybe what you reproduce in your head isn't exactly what you want to draw or play, but your brain tricks you into thinking it's right. After all, you can visualize an image, but can you visualize the exact lines and curves you would have to draw to put it on paper? If you can't do that, you aren't really visualizing the image; you're just visualizing a vague ideal of the image.
It's like hearing your voice in a recording versus hearing your voice when you speak - it sounds good until it leaves your head.
I did you one better - I have my Windows VM running on a Linux VM, and the Linux VM is running on the Windows VM. It was kind of tricky to set up at first, but now I don't even need hardware! There's just a spinning matrix of computation in the basement. My dog is afraid to go in there.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry about that, it was actually 58 FOIA requests over four days. Source: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html (which is probably the one you found; odd that you don't cite it yourself)
As to whether or not the denials were legitimate: assume that the the denials were not legitimate. At that point, what would a claimant do? They would follow up on the FOI claim. There is no evidence that this happened. The argument from silence isn't the strongest, but when you're dealing with people who are normally as loud as these climate change denialists, silence can be deafening.
They "lost" the raw data pursuant to their contract with the UK National Meteorological Service, which stated that they must delete the raw data when they were done with it.
Further, the head of the CRU did not "announce" that he would delete "such" data. He said, in a private e-mail, that he would rather delete a different data set than see it in the hands of people who would mis-use it. This data was not deleted, and the plan to spam the CRU with FOIA requests was not successful in attaining the data.
Seriously, just because they're both "data" doesn't mean that they're the same data. I don't understand why people have a problem with this.
Evading a legitimate FOIA request? Do you, perhaps, mean the 50-ish FOIA requests that the CRU received over the course of two days, each one taking probably an hour or two of their legal counsel's time to process? That were, in fact, legitimately denied? Sure, one of the scientists said that he'd rather delete the data than give it to the people who spammed them with "legitimate" FOIA requests - but those FOIA requests were not granted (and funnily enough, none of the people submitting those FOIA requests followed up on them through legal channels), and the data was not deleted.
The rest of your claims are similarly uninformed. Who's not paying attention here?
Of course they can! The first thing the anthropogenic global climate change conspiracy did was hide the secret of telepathy. Duh.
Movie theaters are actually one of the few exceptions; although it's not a legal requirement, you basically can't get movies for your theater unless you sign a contract with (I think) the MPAA that says you'll follow the age restrictions. A movie theater that allows unaccompanied minors into R rated movies as a matter of policy will either shape up or go out of business.
She doesn't, that was Palin.
Sooooo... what happens when supply goes up to infinity? When, for instance, you can create a copy of the good for $epsilon? Further, what happens when the physical supply is zero? For instance, Song of the South - its value to Disney is $0, because it is simply no longer for sale. How much are you stealing from Disney if you pirate something they refuse to sell?
Congratulations, you've missed the point entirely. It's just a silly name for a centralized means of donating to good open-source projects. (You also get a fun certificate out of it.)
And if you tell that dialog "I want to burn these files to the CD", you'll get a CD that only works on other Windows computers. By default, Windows does not burn CDs in a manner compatible with anything but Windows. That's so much more user friendly than Linux or OSX, because everyone loves the mystery of "why doesn't this CD work on my friend's mac?"
22.6 million in grants since 1990? That's a fucking travesty. That's about 1.1 million a year to run a lab, pay wages, buy equipment, purchase services, pay for facilities, and fund all of those other things you need to do to do science - they must be running on a near-shoestring budget, and this is some of the most important research on Earth right now.
Oh wait was I supposed to be aghast that the man personally received millions of dollars in grants? That's not the way it works; you really don't get rich doing science.
... the credentials of the people arguing any specific case are not what he cares about. These are his points:
* All software is data.
* All software is discovered and not invented.
* All software is abstract.
* All software is mathematics.
In order to support those claims, he wrote the entire rest of the post. That's why he went on to "ramble about Godel's numbers, and Turing Machines" - to provide the basis for these claims. He doesn't just leave those assertions hanging; the rest of the post is directed towards proving that they are true.
I'm pretty sure you're one of those programmers whose eyes glaze over when people start talking about Turing Machines and currying, but seriously - the theoretical aspects of Computer Science can be very important.
Hey, if their comment got +5 Insightful, I'll gladly copy it into the inevitable dupe :)
Well, at least they're not eeeeeeeeemacs. I don't know what I'd do then.
How does Costco get you to try food you otherwise might not? Free samples. You pledge to someone because you like the free stuff they've put on their website already, and you want to see more of it.
I have tagged your comment. data(a) is one set of data. data(b) is a different set of data. Just because they're both "data" doesn't mean they're the same data.
Example:
"I'd rather drink this wine than give it to you."
"Well where's those grapes you had in 1980?"
"I made them into this wine and discarded the husks."
"Hah! So that means you ate the grapes!"
"What? That makes no sense, and anyway the national vintological service has clones if you want them."
So yes, we should believe them. Why would you keep massive amounts of raw data, when someone else has copies of it?
... and obviously the deletion didn't happen, because you have this e-mail. Someone acting hastily is not a felony if wiser heads prevail and no action is taken, and it's entirely possible he didn't know that you're not supposed to delete data that's subject to a current FoI request - he's a scientist, not a lawyer. (also, the fact that the FoI requests were not granted should tell you something about their vexatious nature).
A moron who has to store petabytes of raw climate data in 1998? Disk space was nowhere near as cheap back then as it is now, and the raw data is still on record with the originating meteorological service. Why not delete it? Anyone who wants it can get a copy from the original source.
... and how exactly will they send you that threat? If they can privately transmit this message to you, they can find you. If they're willing to broadcast that message, you're both going to die if you give yourself up.
Seriously, detectives who actually solve crimes are in the minority, and why not? Who needs to solve violent crime, when you can just spend your time tracking down non-violent criminals?
I'm a zombie, you insensitive clod!
You made me vaguely excited when you said that Galcon is a "better version of the Stars! idea". Pity it isn't - after trying Galcon, I have to say that statement is equivalent to saying Risk is a better version of the Warhammer 40k idea. They're entirely different in terms of simulation scope and detail.
Honestly, it seems like Galcon is basically the same game as Eufloria, with a different skin.
That is entirely not what bit rot means. The canonical definition is here. You may be referring to software rot, but it doesn't really mean that either, since both refer to software that hasn't been used for a while and obviously does not apply to Windows.
Or maybe what you reproduce in your head isn't exactly what you want to draw or play, but your brain tricks you into thinking it's right. After all, you can visualize an image, but can you visualize the exact lines and curves you would have to draw to put it on paper? If you can't do that, you aren't really visualizing the image; you're just visualizing a vague ideal of the image.
It's like hearing your voice in a recording versus hearing your voice when you speak - it sounds good until it leaves your head.
I did you one better - I have my Windows VM running on a Linux VM, and the Linux VM is running on the Windows VM. It was kind of tricky to set up at first, but now I don't even need hardware! There's just a spinning matrix of computation in the basement. My dog is afraid to go in there.