. . . okay, so you were deliberately putting up a strawman argument in response to a perfectly reasonable post - that just confirms you being a moron.
No it wasn't a perfectly reasonable post. That makes you the moron. The idiot who posted seems to think that there is a secret science and in this secret science, they don't show their concepts or anything but the claim.
As to context, I've read most of your posts on this thread, and most of the responses, and somehow or other they haven't improved my opinion of your intellect or intellectual honesty. I stand by my original post: you're not worth arguing with.
I'm not concerned with your opinion. You couldn't even tell when I was calling someone out on their comment, you are obviously lacking the mental aptitude for me to be bothered by. Perhaps one day if you apply yourself but I doubt you ever will.
So now that we have that straight, you can go back to fucking your sister or whatever it is to make yourself feel better about your life. I just hope your children are born terminally ill so we don't have to worry about your genes continuing to pollute the human race.
Moron. The 'insight' into the data and the methodology is provided in the paper - the peer reviewed paper published in a journal. The fact that you don't know this simple, basic fact indicates that you're too ignorant to argue with.
No moron, what I was using was sarcasm and a strawman to show how fucking stupid the concept I receive in the GP post was. If you would have read more then just the last part, not only would you not have wasted my time and made the world less intelligent with your unfounded ramblings, but you would have had a fucking clue in which you wouldn't be appearing like such a retard right now.
And yes, I was attempting to force the fucking GP to admit he was wrong, not invite a complete total moron who doesn't even bother learning the context of the situation before responding to jump in and attempt to look like an ass.
Oh yea, modded troll again when putting some ignorant idiot in their place. And yea, all I have to do to make it ineffective is to just post a reply to it so it doesn't get buried.
I was with you until I discovered that I would have to go to a McDonald's or a Starbucks in order to get service in my area. I don't see that happening so I guess I just don't care now. And yes, I'm a Verizon DSL customer.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I think it strays from my concept a little. I don't agree with current copyright terms but I agree the need for them to be there. I think something like 50-70 years with mandatory licensing after 15-20 years might be more palatable for most of us.
However, back to the topic, I really wasn't arguing that all research be put into the public domain, just the research that is being used to effect policy. You see, Sergey Brin and Larry Page could keep thier search engine code private all they wanted until they said "our search engine code discovered this and you should change your laws or policies because of it". At that point in time, they would be effecting public policy and the lives of ordinary people and I believe we have not only a right know the accuracy of the claims being made but our leaders have an obligation to show their reasoning to us in all their decisions if asked. They don't have to do exactly what we want, but we should have access to as much information as possible with the exception of a few national security secrets that could endanger American's lives.
Now it is possible that some companies want to keep their data private, all they would have to do is just that, keep it private and not subject it to the realm of political discourse. In other words, if the data was privately collected, then it either can't be used by government studies or would be off limits when attempting to influence the governments or when that does happen, there needs to be a provision to allow free and open access to it. It's not a problem to anonymize information to protect the identity of people either, the data will be just as valid in 99.9 percent or more of the time.
But if the governments of the world are going to say because of X, we need to do Y and Z, Then X should be as transparent and open as humanly possible despite any claims to ownership of it. I mean we wouldn't stand for a country wide national speed limit of 35 MPH because some private study indicated it would be the best speed limit without seeing the data. We are talking about worse here, we are talking about taxing the people directly and indirectly, potentially causing jobs to be lost, and greatly harming the poorest people who can least afford to guard against those actions. The people of other countries might be gleefully accepting the information on blind faith, but it presents a problem for a lot of people who have a lot to lose in this country and we want to know it is absolutely necessary by allowing people to double check the information. We have a right to know and there is an obligation to present the data.
I didn't say they ignored them. I said they misrepresented them and ignored the claims of how they were doing it wrong until it was proved by these skeptics.
And yes, the solar representations were increased within the last 3-4 years in order to account for the inadequacy of warming potential of the increased Co2. This was after about 6 years of claims that the model numbers simple didn't add up.
No it's not. Their job is to do research. It's other scientists jobs to review their work. And yet more scientists might choose to try and reproduce it. But that would involve using a different data set.
So what you saying is that any scientist can make a claim, refuse to give the supporting data and it is up to other scientist to prove or disprove his claim without any insight to the data or methodology. This doesn't sound like the science they taught me in school, I will write them a not as soon as I remember how to write in cursive and tell them they need to change the text books to this new science.
If this isn't what you mean, then by all mean please explain how you can have secret science.
Of course scientists do help each other on request, where IPR issues don't get in the way. But that doesn't make it their job to spoon feed bloggers with data on request.
Yea, it doesn't make it their job to back up what they are claiming with evidence or proof to how they arrived at their claims. More secret science. Here is an idea, how about if any science is going to be used to influence public policy in a political realm, full disclosure of all facts, data, and methods be mandated or it can't be used for anything but internal company use. It's only fair that people who are going to be influenced by the claims have the resourced to validate them. And yes, this goes for a blogger who want to make sure you are not making the same mistakes that were already found by him.
Only conspiracy theorists are suggesting such a thing. There's no evidence whatsoever that the data won't be supplied to other scientists under a license or NDA.
How interesting. You are conveniently ignoring the article and topic on hand in order to suggest that someone who belongs to the exclusive club might get access to the data if they don't disclose it to anyone and those people might not agree with their research. Now isn't that quaint, and now because I pointed out that I thought this was unreasonable, I'm a conspiracy theorist. How about not ignoring the evidence at hand, someone who has already pointed out flaws in the math is being denied access to the data specifically because he is going to point out flaws in the math. I mean there isn't much closer to reality that a conspiracy can get other then to be true. And this one sounds awfully close to being true, especially with your promotion of secret research and only club member access.
Here is the thing, I don't need to be a scientist in any specific field to be an interested party when people are attempting to influence public policy with their claims coming from the field. If I were to say X is evil and needed to be outlawed, and that would stop you from doing any subset of X, you would want to see my proof of X being evil and have a chance at validating it or refuting it. There is nothing special outside of all the political advantage and the attempts to hide inaccuracies with climate data that would prevent anyone from knowing X. The entire attempt to hide it from anyone for any reason is pure grounds for suspicion, now you telling me that there is new secret science and people have to invest millions in finding the exact data on their own just to repeat your claims? And you see it as some vast right wing conspiracy. Of course the last vast right wing conspiracy turned out to be true too. Remember the dress?
Yes, and thus they were complete crap. GM put no effort into making a GOOD small car that people would want. Thus, Americans went with foreign cars that were better built and got better mileage...oh, and they didn't have to be small to do it. The Toyota Camry, a full-sized car, got better mileage than most of the GM econoboxes. More expensive? Of course, they were better built and gave their owners fewer headaches. You have to pay for quality.
And you point is what? GM still didn't make a profit off of them. Spending more money would not have changed that. It isn't a volume thing because they were already producing as many as they could. The cost per car verses profit per car wouldn't have change by increasing production. They still would have lost money on them and be in the same boat they are now.
Know what I find interesting about this argument? It's still alive. GM's losses amounted to about $39 billion/year. Their total annual labor expenditures, union and non-union combined, was about $22 billion. Even were you to bring back slavery, your theory still doesn't account for the extra $17 billion in losses. GM's primary problem was the fact that they have some 3200 dealerships across the US, and they compete against each other AND the foreign offerings. Toyota (I keep using them, but I drive a Chevy) has about 1300. They only have to compete against their competitors. BTW, they also build their cars with American labor paid approximately the same as the union employees at GM. The difference: they don't have to be forced to do it.
This has all been laid out in finacial news papers before. I think you are failing to add in their costs of retirement packages that were brought on by the union. Anyways, the benefit packages and all add up to a labor cost for Toyota and other imports being about half to 2/3rds that of GM's. Having to pay 1/3rds less in labor costs when GM was still profitable would have made their small cars profitable and probably allowed them to do the investments you talked about in the previous paragraph.
How is that possible? According to your theory, if you have union employees, it's impossible to turn a profit. Did Ford get rid of their unions? I'm surprised that didn't make the papers.
Actually, Ford did some restructuring back in 2000-2003 and their unions got a lot less then they wanted. Ford also moves some production to overseas in that time span and their profit was primarily due to debt restructuring. It isn't hard if you just pay attention to what going on instead of swallowing the hype.
Chrysler....yeah, that's the union's fault. It was their fault they engaged in a completely disastrous merger with Daimler a few years back that resulted in a duplication of in-fighting management across the board and almost destroyed both companies. The Daimler-Chrysler merger is studied in business school as an example of why mergers (some 70% of which fail) are a terrible idea. Inside joke for years after the merger: "How do you spell Daimler-Chrysler?" "It's spelled Daimler, the Chrysler is silent".
And again, your point is what? Chrysler choose to reorganize instead of continuing to operate with business as usual. And no, their mismanagement may have played a role in the deal but you cannot deny that their labor costs alone was 30-50 percent higher then their import competitors. It seems that you are trying your ass off to ignore this plain and simple fact. Here is a hint, if it takes 1 million instead of 750k to produce 65 cars that will only sell for 17k, then there isn't profit in it as if they had the lessor. This is a competitive advantage that allowed the imports to concentrate on R&D to make better products with better fuel economy. You can ignore it all you want, but the fucking math doesn't lie.
I didn't say it was, I said it was something like. Anyways, it's still that the data was erroneous and took someone, the guy people like you are calling a troll, to point it out. The same guy is the one the pointed out problems last year when Hansen attempted to claim another hottest month on record until a further examination found they entered the previous months twice. And it wasn't until the initial discovery did Hansen and other US agencies released methods or data.
It's not insignificant as you attempt to play it off, a lot of people attempted to influence US policy over the incorrect data. That policy effected many more people then you and those who want to believe no matter how hard it is to show their side.
A problem I have with real climate is that they will often cite the articles being discredited as reference withing discrediting McIntyre and other deniers. This doesn't really prove them wrong if they are using flawed assumptions in order to discredit someone pointing out the flaws in those assumptions. This was true for the longest time on the fact of water-vapor which has recently been adjusted in most of the climate models after years of denying it's impact. Solar variations was another they were forced to include after years of denying it and pointing to the discrdited works as justifications for discrediting McIntyre.
If you live by real climates words, then you should check your reality quit often. It's most likely not fitting with everyone else'.
Their job is to support their claims. Without access to the data, they aren't doing that. Giving them only to people who will agree with you does not support your claims, it just means that people willing to make the same possible mistakes are seeing the same results.
If you somehow think what you said it true, then you shouldn't complain about me no releasing my raw data on using water for fuel with my secret electrolysis process. In fact, you should actually buy the plans for one and build it yourself.
If there ever was a purpose for Wiki leaks, then data and information being used to influence political actions around the globe not being availible to anyone who wants to verify it is the reason.
The way I see it, if it was paid for using government funds (which belong to the people and are raised from the people), and it is being used to influence policy, then it should all be publicly availible regardless of any copyright or any confidentiality agreements. If they pose a problem, invalidate them by law which is also what allows them- laws. It doesn't need to get complicated.
That's right, the Y2k bug in Hansen's temp data had absolutely nothing to do with date representations. It was only called Y2k because it became especially apparent with the year 2000.
It was a bug in the averaging code and when the old numbers were used with the new numbers, we gained something like 5 degree F when doing a rolling average and when going backwards to check the math, it ended up not checking out. So simply double checking the math could have caught this. If it wasn't for McIntyre keeping his own records and checking them against Hansen's numbers, we would have never known of the mistake specifically because the US accounting agencies hid the data from him and anyone else who would have wanted to double check it. Now the UK is fighting to keep their numbers secret while claiming trust us, we know what's best and it's peer reviewed, just by the peers we like who won't question anything.
Why don't you look at cap and tax..er trade and tell me which organizations are attempting to put the other at a severe disadvantage by forcing studies published that won't even give access to the data used to represent the conclusions and opinions as reasoning for unprecedented government actions.
You really need to find a mantra that you can state without actually lieing. The US automakers were making the large cars because they weren't making enough money on the smaller cars to turn a profit. They were basically only there to drive fleet mileage down and to have a low end offering to retain brand recognition. This has more to do with unions and labor costs which was a big topic of the bailouts in which GM was the only company to take. Ford (a US car maker) had actually turned a profit and Chrysler is took the rout of reorganization in order to get out from under a lot of the Union costs.
The so called oil crisis was caused by speculators running unchecked and it didn't happen until both houses of congress was controlled by the democrats. It doesn't take much of an imagination given their tax the piss out of everyone under the guise of global warming in which the data is not even availible to anyone not already drinking the kool-aid to assume this was by design and not because of market forces.
You also have no idea that green tech will be profitable. As it stands, they want to cap emissions and tax the hell out of everything in order to make it so. No one in their right mind would look at something that needs massive government expansion and mandated limits in order to be profitable as the "future" market until after those caps and taxes happened.
It sounds to me that you have been drinking the Kool-aid and are now unable to see things for what they are or were.
Studies mean a lot without data, you can get arbitrary regulations and treaties passed like the Kyoto accords and so on. You can force the citizens to do your will and everything else.
It took backwards engineering from some rogue climatologist that others will complain misrepresents the data to point out the very real Y2K error in the US accounting for average temps. It wasn't until solid proof was shown, that the US government forced their agencies to release the data.
Not only that, Slashdot has certainly been around since before 2000 yet posts before that are not availible. IIRC, it was something to do with a server crash or drive failure and the costs of backing up the posts at the time meant it didn't happen. So even if it is around in 70 years, there is no guarantee that a post would be.
Wow, even in admitting you were wrong, you have to find a way to "Blame Bush".
Fact of the matter is that Hubble was funded and NASA execs made the decision to use the funding in other ways. That was stopped probably by people closer to Bush more then anything. All this pointing to Bush for everything you don't agree with or don't like isn't healthy when you are basically making shit up to do so. You need to get over him and get over yourself.
I don't ever remember hearing Bush claimed to have wanted to scrap Hubble. Perhaps you could point to proof of this? Now NASA did want to scrap it because of diverting funding to other projects and the reletive safety concerns involved with a mission to repair it's orbit and a few other things. But that was NASA and not Bush.
I'm not sure about chrome, but in the shop I administrate, when we turned from IE to firefox, we dropped the virus infection rates enormously. We also didn't have to worry much about the computer hanging forever "waiting on an internet connection" or refusing to get the internet because some spyware app broke the winsocks stack.
If the average Joe is one of those people who think getting virus' and spyware on a regular basis is normal, or that you need to reload windows every years or so because the software somehow gets gummed up, then they probably won't care. But if they are sick of losing all their installed programs every 4 to 8 months or paying some repair shop a couple hundred to keep their computers working in the same time frame, then alternative browsers are pretty much a must.
But we aren't talking about an entire distro nor are we talking about reimbursement for the entire cost of developing. We are talking about the damage done from a temporary distribution of a single component or parts of several components against the contract terms of a license. Because it is already given away- source, secrets and all, then you would have to show how that distribution of the code damaged your ability to do the same successfully. But seeing how your own license gives everyone else that ability, it would be extremely difficult to show an actual harm. The statutory default for a copyright violation would be the worse that could happen and given a good explanation of how it was a mistake, that might not be to much either.
So the worse that could happen is a judgment of between $750 and $30,000 per any one work covered by the copyright. And if the infringement is determined not to have been knowing (the infringer wasn't aware of the infringement, the court can lower statutory damages to $200 per any one work.
Exactly, Knowing someone is biased doesn't give you any information into how he might be biased. It's important because instead of reading everything as a skeptic, you could now just be skeptical about his team rocking while the others suxors.
Here is a better example, A judge could potentially be biased because he has met the defendant before. Disclosing this isn't an automatic requirement for a recusal (judicial disqualification) because the disclosure could be that he saw the defendant at a charity dinner where he sat two tables away some 20 years ago. But if the disclosure would state he was a business partner and stood to lose a deal of money if the defendant lost, it would be. SO knowing the why or the how of the disclosure is just as important as the disclosure in most cases.
Slashdot Mirror
No it wasn't a perfectly reasonable post. That makes you the moron. The idiot who posted seems to think that there is a secret science and in this secret science, they don't show their concepts or anything but the claim.
I'm not concerned with your opinion. You couldn't even tell when I was calling someone out on their comment, you are obviously lacking the mental aptitude for me to be bothered by. Perhaps one day if you apply yourself but I doubt you ever will.
So now that we have that straight, you can go back to fucking your sister or whatever it is to make yourself feel better about your life. I just hope your children are born terminally ill so we don't have to worry about your genes continuing to pollute the human race.
No moron, what I was using was sarcasm and a strawman to show how fucking stupid the concept I receive in the GP post was. If you would have read more then just the last part, not only would you not have wasted my time and made the world less intelligent with your unfounded ramblings, but you would have had a fucking clue in which you wouldn't be appearing like such a retard right now.
And yes, I was attempting to force the fucking GP to admit he was wrong, not invite a complete total moron who doesn't even bother learning the context of the situation before responding to jump in and attempt to look like an ass.
Oh yea, modded troll again when putting some ignorant idiot in their place. And yea, all I have to do to make it ineffective is to just post a reply to it so it doesn't get buried.
I was with you until I discovered that I would have to go to a McDonald's or a Starbucks in order to get service in my area. I don't see that happening so I guess I just don't care now. And yes, I'm a Verizon DSL customer.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I think it strays from my concept a little. I don't agree with current copyright terms but I agree the need for them to be there. I think something like 50-70 years with mandatory licensing after 15-20 years might be more palatable for most of us.
However, back to the topic, I really wasn't arguing that all research be put into the public domain, just the research that is being used to effect policy. You see, Sergey Brin and Larry Page could keep thier search engine code private all they wanted until they said "our search engine code discovered this and you should change your laws or policies because of it". At that point in time, they would be effecting public policy and the lives of ordinary people and I believe we have not only a right know the accuracy of the claims being made but our leaders have an obligation to show their reasoning to us in all their decisions if asked. They don't have to do exactly what we want, but we should have access to as much information as possible with the exception of a few national security secrets that could endanger American's lives.
Now it is possible that some companies want to keep their data private, all they would have to do is just that, keep it private and not subject it to the realm of political discourse. In other words, if the data was privately collected, then it either can't be used by government studies or would be off limits when attempting to influence the governments or when that does happen, there needs to be a provision to allow free and open access to it. It's not a problem to anonymize information to protect the identity of people either, the data will be just as valid in 99.9 percent or more of the time.
But if the governments of the world are going to say because of X, we need to do Y and Z, Then X should be as transparent and open as humanly possible despite any claims to ownership of it. I mean we wouldn't stand for a country wide national speed limit of 35 MPH because some private study indicated it would be the best speed limit without seeing the data. We are talking about worse here, we are talking about taxing the people directly and indirectly, potentially causing jobs to be lost, and greatly harming the poorest people who can least afford to guard against those actions. The people of other countries might be gleefully accepting the information on blind faith, but it presents a problem for a lot of people who have a lot to lose in this country and we want to know it is absolutely necessary by allowing people to double check the information. We have a right to know and there is an obligation to present the data.
I didn't say they ignored them. I said they misrepresented them and ignored the claims of how they were doing it wrong until it was proved by these skeptics.
And yes, the solar representations were increased within the last 3-4 years in order to account for the inadequacy of warming potential of the increased Co2. This was after about 6 years of claims that the model numbers simple didn't add up.
So what you saying is that any scientist can make a claim, refuse to give the supporting data and it is up to other scientist to prove or disprove his claim without any insight to the data or methodology. This doesn't sound like the science they taught me in school, I will write them a not as soon as I remember how to write in cursive and tell them they need to change the text books to this new science.
If this isn't what you mean, then by all mean please explain how you can have secret science.
Yea, it doesn't make it their job to back up what they are claiming with evidence or proof to how they arrived at their claims. More secret science. Here is an idea, how about if any science is going to be used to influence public policy in a political realm, full disclosure of all facts, data, and methods be mandated or it can't be used for anything but internal company use. It's only fair that people who are going to be influenced by the claims have the resourced to validate them. And yes, this goes for a blogger who want to make sure you are not making the same mistakes that were already found by him.
How interesting. You are conveniently ignoring the article and topic on hand in order to suggest that someone who belongs to the exclusive club might get access to the data if they don't disclose it to anyone and those people might not agree with their research. Now isn't that quaint, and now because I pointed out that I thought this was unreasonable, I'm a conspiracy theorist. How about not ignoring the evidence at hand, someone who has already pointed out flaws in the math is being denied access to the data specifically because he is going to point out flaws in the math. I mean there isn't much closer to reality that a conspiracy can get other then to be true. And this one sounds awfully close to being true, especially with your promotion of secret research and only club member access.
Here is the thing, I don't need to be a scientist in any specific field to be an interested party when people are attempting to influence public policy with their claims coming from the field. If I were to say X is evil and needed to be outlawed, and that would stop you from doing any subset of X, you would want to see my proof of X being evil and have a chance at validating it or refuting it. There is nothing special outside of all the political advantage and the attempts to hide inaccuracies with climate data that would prevent anyone from knowing X. The entire attempt to hide it from anyone for any reason is pure grounds for suspicion, now you telling me that there is new secret science and people have to invest millions in finding the exact data on their own just to repeat your claims? And you see it as some vast right wing conspiracy. Of course the last vast right wing conspiracy turned out to be true too. Remember the dress?
And you point is what? GM still didn't make a profit off of them. Spending more money would not have changed that. It isn't a volume thing because they were already producing as many as they could. The cost per car verses profit per car wouldn't have change by increasing production. They still would have lost money on them and be in the same boat they are now.
This has all been laid out in finacial news papers before. I think you are failing to add in their costs of retirement packages that were brought on by the union. Anyways, the benefit packages and all add up to a labor cost for Toyota and other imports being about half to 2/3rds that of GM's. Having to pay 1/3rds less in labor costs when GM was still profitable would have made their small cars profitable and probably allowed them to do the investments you talked about in the previous paragraph.
Actually, Ford did some restructuring back in 2000-2003 and their unions got a lot less then they wanted. Ford also moves some production to overseas in that time span and their profit was primarily due to debt restructuring. It isn't hard if you just pay attention to what going on instead of swallowing the hype.
And again, your point is what? Chrysler choose to reorganize instead of continuing to operate with business as usual. And no, their mismanagement may have played a role in the deal but you cannot deny that their labor costs alone was 30-50 percent higher then their import competitors. It seems that you are trying your ass off to ignore this plain and simple fact. Here is a hint, if it takes 1 million instead of 750k to produce 65 cars that will only sell for 17k, then there isn't profit in it as if they had the lessor. This is a competitive advantage that allowed the imports to concentrate on R&D to make better products with better fuel economy. You can ignore it all you want, but the fucking math doesn't lie.
I didn't say it was, I said it was something like. Anyways, it's still that the data was erroneous and took someone, the guy people like you are calling a troll, to point it out. The same guy is the one the pointed out problems last year when Hansen attempted to claim another hottest month on record until a further examination found they entered the previous months twice. And it wasn't until the initial discovery did Hansen and other US agencies released methods or data.
It's not insignificant as you attempt to play it off, a lot of people attempted to influence US policy over the incorrect data. That policy effected many more people then you and those who want to believe no matter how hard it is to show their side.
I believe the source was an email that he published on his site in it's entirety. He even had the entire conversation published at one time.
A problem I have with real climate is that they will often cite the articles being discredited as reference withing discrediting McIntyre and other deniers. This doesn't really prove them wrong if they are using flawed assumptions in order to discredit someone pointing out the flaws in those assumptions. This was true for the longest time on the fact of water-vapor which has recently been adjusted in most of the climate models after years of denying it's impact. Solar variations was another they were forced to include after years of denying it and pointing to the discrdited works as justifications for discrediting McIntyre.
If you live by real climates words, then you should check your reality quit often. It's most likely not fitting with everyone else'.
Their job is to support their claims. Without access to the data, they aren't doing that. Giving them only to people who will agree with you does not support your claims, it just means that people willing to make the same possible mistakes are seeing the same results.
If you somehow think what you said it true, then you shouldn't complain about me no releasing my raw data on using water for fuel with my secret electrolysis process. In fact, you should actually buy the plans for one and build it yourself.
Actually, it would be falsifiable by simply reviewing the accuracy of the raw data then comparing it to the expected results.
Wiki leaks is your friend.
If there ever was a purpose for Wiki leaks, then data and information being used to influence political actions around the globe not being availible to anyone who wants to verify it is the reason.
The way I see it, if it was paid for using government funds (which belong to the people and are raised from the people), and it is being used to influence policy, then it should all be publicly availible regardless of any copyright or any confidentiality agreements. If they pose a problem, invalidate them by law which is also what allows them- laws. It doesn't need to get complicated.
That's right, the Y2k bug in Hansen's temp data had absolutely nothing to do with date representations. It was only called Y2k because it became especially apparent with the year 2000.
It was a bug in the averaging code and when the old numbers were used with the new numbers, we gained something like 5 degree F when doing a rolling average and when going backwards to check the math, it ended up not checking out. So simply double checking the math could have caught this. If it wasn't for McIntyre keeping his own records and checking them against Hansen's numbers, we would have never known of the mistake specifically because the US accounting agencies hid the data from him and anyone else who would have wanted to double check it. Now the UK is fighting to keep their numbers secret while claiming trust us, we know what's best and it's peer reviewed, just by the peers we like who won't question anything.
Why don't you look at cap and tax..er trade and tell me which organizations are attempting to put the other at a severe disadvantage by forcing studies published that won't even give access to the data used to represent the conclusions and opinions as reasoning for unprecedented government actions.
You really need to find a mantra that you can state without actually lieing. The US automakers were making the large cars because they weren't making enough money on the smaller cars to turn a profit. They were basically only there to drive fleet mileage down and to have a low end offering to retain brand recognition. This has more to do with unions and labor costs which was a big topic of the bailouts in which GM was the only company to take. Ford (a US car maker) had actually turned a profit and Chrysler is took the rout of reorganization in order to get out from under a lot of the Union costs.
The so called oil crisis was caused by speculators running unchecked and it didn't happen until both houses of congress was controlled by the democrats. It doesn't take much of an imagination given their tax the piss out of everyone under the guise of global warming in which the data is not even availible to anyone not already drinking the kool-aid to assume this was by design and not because of market forces.
You also have no idea that green tech will be profitable. As it stands, they want to cap emissions and tax the hell out of everything in order to make it so. No one in their right mind would look at something that needs massive government expansion and mandated limits in order to be profitable as the "future" market until after those caps and taxes happened.
It sounds to me that you have been drinking the Kool-aid and are now unable to see things for what they are or were.
Studies mean a lot without data, you can get arbitrary regulations and treaties passed like the Kyoto accords and so on. You can force the citizens to do your will and everything else.
It took backwards engineering from some rogue climatologist that others will complain misrepresents the data to point out the very real Y2K error in the US accounting for average temps. It wasn't until solid proof was shown, that the US government forced their agencies to release the data.
Not only that, Slashdot has certainly been around since before 2000 yet posts before that are not availible. IIRC, it was something to do with a server crash or drive failure and the costs of backing up the posts at the time meant it didn't happen. So even if it is around in 70 years, there is no guarantee that a post would be.
Wow, even in admitting you were wrong, you have to find a way to "Blame Bush".
Fact of the matter is that Hubble was funded and NASA execs made the decision to use the funding in other ways. That was stopped probably by people closer to Bush more then anything. All this pointing to Bush for everything you don't agree with or don't like isn't healthy when you are basically making shit up to do so. You need to get over him and get over yourself.
I don't ever remember hearing Bush claimed to have wanted to scrap Hubble. Perhaps you could point to proof of this? Now NASA did want to scrap it because of diverting funding to other projects and the reletive safety concerns involved with a mission to repair it's orbit and a few other things. But that was NASA and not Bush.
I'm not sure about chrome, but in the shop I administrate, when we turned from IE to firefox, we dropped the virus infection rates enormously. We also didn't have to worry much about the computer hanging forever "waiting on an internet connection" or refusing to get the internet because some spyware app broke the winsocks stack.
If the average Joe is one of those people who think getting virus' and spyware on a regular basis is normal, or that you need to reload windows every years or so because the software somehow gets gummed up, then they probably won't care. But if they are sick of losing all their installed programs every 4 to 8 months or paying some repair shop a couple hundred to keep their computers working in the same time frame, then alternative browsers are pretty much a must.
But we aren't talking about an entire distro nor are we talking about reimbursement for the entire cost of developing. We are talking about the damage done from a temporary distribution of a single component or parts of several components against the contract terms of a license. Because it is already given away- source, secrets and all, then you would have to show how that distribution of the code damaged your ability to do the same successfully. But seeing how your own license gives everyone else that ability, it would be extremely difficult to show an actual harm. The statutory default for a copyright violation would be the worse that could happen and given a good explanation of how it was a mistake, that might not be to much either.
So the worse that could happen is a judgment of between $750 and $30,000 per any one work covered by the copyright. And if the infringement is determined not to have been knowing (the infringer wasn't aware of the infringement, the court can lower statutory damages to $200 per any one work.
Exactly, Knowing someone is biased doesn't give you any information into how he might be biased. It's important because instead of reading everything as a skeptic, you could now just be skeptical about his team rocking while the others suxors.
Here is a better example, A judge could potentially be biased because he has met the defendant before. Disclosing this isn't an automatic requirement for a recusal (judicial disqualification) because the disclosure could be that he saw the defendant at a charity dinner where he sat two tables away some 20 years ago. But if the disclosure would state he was a business partner and stood to lose a deal of money if the defendant lost, it would be. SO knowing the why or the how of the disclosure is just as important as the disclosure in most cases.