Many posts above use the argument that public funding should yield open results. I'm all for that, but the stronger argument for opening the original source is that the future costs will be much, much greater. The Kyoto protocol will costs billions of $,£ or whatever, and the hockey stick has been "talismanic" in promoting the protocol. See Spot the hockey stick at McIntyre's web site.
The GPL is anti-business because it seeks to undermine traditional business models (by reducing the cost of software to $0) while thwarting alternative business cases.
Errm, don't "traditional business models" fail because in practice the marginal cost per unit of utility s/w is $0. Maintaining prices above this level can only be done by rigging the market.
On a lighter note, there was a story here in Scotland a couple of years ago about how a guy who had to invent a full 90 minutes of radio commentary on a football (=soccer) match in 1942 or so. He couldn't say that the match had been abandoned because of fog, in case the commentary was monitored and revealed weather conditions.
Having done serious work with LISP, I would now reject it on the grounds that its type system is broken and too much programming within it relies on side effecting. This combination means that determining what a nil return value means, as far as the logic of some program is concerned, can require analytical skills orders more powerful than mine.
The most sensible suggestion I have heard about how to reconcile author's rights with the fact of unlimited and essentially free duplication comes from an entrepreneur called Bob Thompson -- of course he may have got the idea elsewhere.
Anyway, the story is that, for any piece of creative work, a price is fixed. Once pledges are received to that amount, the work is released and may be duplicated gratis. The author gets paid, but has to set a realistic price, the audience get what it wants at a price it is willing to pay, and there's no DRM in sight.
Ouch. I think this language is immoderate. I don't know the Mann paper and so can't comment on that. On issues such as sea-level rises where less technical knowledge is needed, it's pretty clear to me that Daly can build substantive cases through thorough argument. Then one only has to worry about the veracity/plausibility of base assumptions.
There is a real issue with the presentation of the Little Ice Age and other temperature excursions in IPCC documents, as well as how the IPCC allows its pronouncements to be used by media and policy makers. A small/localized Little Ice is/was pretty key to the standard IPCC claims.
Cheers,
-- Jo
Required reading for anyone entering this thread:
Still waiting for Greenhouse
which has a pretty comprehensive treatment of the whole greenhouse show.
Slashdot Mirror
Many posts above use the argument that public funding should yield open results. I'm all for that, but the stronger argument for opening the original source is that the future costs will be much, much greater. The Kyoto protocol will costs billions of $,£ or whatever, and the hockey stick has been "talismanic" in promoting the protocol. See Spot the hockey stick at McIntyre's web site.
And after you read the Real Climate pages, please read this.
Errm, don't "traditional business models" fail because in practice the marginal cost per unit of utility s/w is $0. Maintaining prices above this level can only be done by rigging the market.
Just my $0 worth ...
Admirable coolness, I agree.
On a lighter note, there was a story here in Scotland a couple of years ago about how a guy who had to invent a full 90 minutes of radio commentary on a football (=soccer) match in 1942 or so. He couldn't say that the match had been abandoned because of fog, in case the commentary was monitored and revealed weather conditions.
Having done serious work with LISP, I would now reject it on the grounds that its type system is broken and too much programming within it relies on side effecting. This combination means that determining what a nil return value means, as far as the logic of some program is concerned, can require analytical skills orders more powerful than mine.
Anyway, the story is that, for any piece of creative work, a price is fixed. Once pledges are received to that amount, the work is released and may be duplicated gratis. The author gets paid, but has to set a realistic price, the audience get what it wants at a price it is willing to pay, and there's no DRM in sight.
The problem with John Daly, is that he is a liar.
Ouch. I think this language is immoderate. I don't know the Mann paper and so can't comment on that. On issues such as sea-level rises where less technical knowledge is needed, it's pretty clear to me that Daly can build substantive cases through thorough argument. Then one only has to worry about the veracity/plausibility of base assumptions.
There is a real issue with the presentation of the Little Ice Age and other temperature excursions in IPCC documents, as well as how the IPCC allows its pronouncements to be used by media and policy makers. A small/localized Little Ice is/was pretty key to the standard IPCC claims. Cheers, -- Jo
Required reading for anyone entering this thread: Still waiting for Greenhouse which has a pretty comprehensive treatment of the whole greenhouse show.