I think they're exaggerating the lost of one particular set of data, from one set of researchers, in one university, compared with thousands of different climate research around the world. So this case of data mismanagement at one university, isn't going to make much difference to the case for global warming being caused by humanities energy usage.
The claims of evolution skeptics and round-earth skeptics is not backed up by observation and evidence. On the other hand, the more extreme claims of anthropogenic global warming _proponents_ are not backed up with sufficient observation and are extrapolated from very small datasets.
Given all of this, to say the "science is settled" is a travesty, and all those who said so fully deserve what's come so far and is undoubtedly coming as there's greater public and scientific scrutiny of their methods:
a) the Yamal tree-ring data - data from 10 trees is extrpolated into a 'trend' and finds its way into a number of papers b) CRU emails - won't say much more, too much said about this already. c) New Zealand average temperature graphs - high-school style 'cooking the graph' to match expectations
At this point, climate scientists who don't open up their raw data, modelling code and assumptions/decision-making are going to look as sleazy as PHB managers who forecast self-serving weird shit to make themselves look good to their bosses.
Why would this be moded as flamebait? I'm sure I don't know, but we'll give it another hearing....
Do you want the email on the professor I read it with? Just so you can notify him personally that the laying out of branches of government, establishing the election process, citizen rights, free speech and all that has nothing to do with democracy. He'll be so surprised.
If he is surprised, then he's an idiot, too. I repeat, read it yourself.
Pray tell, what makes a country democratic, if not free speech, free elections, oversight of government, balances to prevent accumulation of power, basic rights of all citizens, habeas corpus?
What makes a country a democracy is majority rule, it has nothing to do with any of those other things at all.
I take back the part about reading the constitution. Maybe you should start with a dictionary.
What's wrong with encouraging fewer monolith corporations and more small competitors? However, I don't see how that philosophy plays into the Sun/Oracle situation. Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.
Indeed. You would think the choice was between an independent Sun and an Oracle owned Sun. Actually, it's between an Oracle owned Sun, and no Sun at all.
Well, in either case, it's probably a good thing for desktop Linux. Google is one of the only players in that arena that has sufficient market clout to propagate a standard, which might finally make it a viable target for commercial applications.
I think of it as a parallel to Mac OS X - OS X may be based on FreeBSD, but commercial application vendors don't target FreeBSD, they target Mac OS, because Apple has the market share and the mind share. One of the big problems with desktop Linux has been that it's a moving target. Every time you turn around a different distro has been the darling of the community, first SLS, then Slackware, then Caldera, RedHat, Mandrake, Ubuntu, etc., and whether or not an application could be reliably migrated from one to the next has always been a hit or miss proposition. A predictable, standard Linux platform with a the clout of Google behind it would go a long, long way in making it a less volatile desktop platform for developers.
The rich ARE evil. One of the principal lacts of their evil is to sponsor a media-culture that gets ordinary schmucks like yourself to identify emotionally with them, aspire to their condition, and to assume an attack on the values of the truly rich to be a personal threat to your own status and mobility.
Um, no asshat. I promote the rights of the rich to their property for the same reason liberals throw a fit when someone like Rodney King gets beaten up by the cops.
If Rodney King isn't secure in his civil rights, neither are the rest of us. And likewise, if Bill Gates isn't secure in his property rights, we aren't either.
Because I took a feminist stance in public, I have been abused in every way possible -- being called irrelevant, a saboteur, coward, homosexual, and even a betrayer of the community.
That's not bad for a start - maybe we could do "burned at the stake" for an encore?
Given the vaccine was only necessary because salmonella is an only an issue of consequence in space travel, isn't that kind of begging the question? I mean, this is an infection that kills maybe 30 people a year on earth. Considering what the cost of running the ISS is, don't you think there are more pressing medical issues to spend that kind of money on?
If you bring in commercial interests they become more important and the same science doesn't get done.
Given that no practical, useful scientific knowledge has emerged from the ISS yet, giving it over to the commercial interests suits me just fine. Explain, exactly, why scientists should be entitled to taxpayer support for essentially nothing but to indulge their own curiosity?
Slashdot Mirror
John Derbyshire expressed a similar sentiment. Which I also agree with.
Well, if you don't like his sig, I doubt you're going to like mine much, either.
I think they're exaggerating the lost of one particular set of data, from one set of researchers, in
one university, compared with thousands of different climate research around the world. So this
case of data mismanagement at one university, isn't going to make much difference to the case
for global warming being caused by humanities energy usage.
Problem is, some of the other sources aren't looking so good, either.
The claims of evolution skeptics and round-earth skeptics is not backed up by observation and evidence. On the other hand, the more extreme claims of anthropogenic global warming _proponents_ are not backed up with sufficient observation and are extrapolated from very small datasets.
Given all of this, to say the "science is settled" is a travesty, and all those who said so fully deserve what's come so far and is undoubtedly coming as there's greater public and scientific scrutiny of their methods:
a) the Yamal tree-ring data - data from 10 trees is extrpolated into a 'trend' and finds its way into a number of papers
b) CRU emails - won't say much more, too much said about this already.
c) New Zealand average temperature graphs - high-school style 'cooking the graph' to match expectations
At this point, climate scientists who don't open up their raw data, modelling code and assumptions/decision-making are going to look as sleazy as PHB managers who forecast self-serving weird shit to make themselves look good to their bosses.
Why would this be moded as flamebait? I'm sure I don't know, but we'll give it another hearing....
Why was this guy moded as a troll? What he's saying is all over the news in Europe.
Do you want the email on the professor I read it with? Just so you can notify him personally that the laying out of branches of government, establishing the election process, citizen rights, free speech and all that has nothing to do with democracy. He'll be so surprised.
If he is surprised, then he's an idiot, too. I repeat, read it yourself.
Pray tell, what makes a country democratic, if not free speech, free elections, oversight of government, balances to prevent accumulation of power, basic rights of all citizens, habeas corpus?
What makes a country a democracy is majority rule, it has nothing to do with any of those other things at all.
I take back the part about reading the constitution. Maybe you should start with a dictionary.
Can you link the image?
Yep.
Are you actually arguing that the constitution is not about democracy? Seriously?
Yes, dead seriously. Try reading it some time, because anyone who would say such an idiotic thing obviously hasn't.
And the constitution is entirely about democracy
Really? Show me where the word is mentioned. I'm sure it must be in there somewhere.
Michelle Obama is not a politician. Attacking family members of a politician is a No-no.
Tell that to Sarah Palin.
But can we be absolutely sure that Oracle buying Sun was the one and only way to get Sun out of financial problems ?
No. They could always have accepted IBM's offer. Pick your poison.
What's wrong with encouraging fewer monolith corporations and more small competitors? However, I don't see how that philosophy plays into the Sun/Oracle situation. Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.
Indeed. You would think the choice was between an independent Sun and an Oracle owned Sun. Actually, it's between an Oracle owned Sun, and no Sun at all.
In my book, that one should be a no-brainer.
Well, in either case, it's probably a good thing for desktop Linux. Google is one of the only players in that arena that has sufficient market clout to propagate a standard, which might finally make it a viable target for commercial applications.
I think of it as a parallel to Mac OS X - OS X may be based on FreeBSD, but commercial application vendors don't target FreeBSD, they target Mac OS, because Apple has the market share and the mind share. One of the big problems with desktop Linux has been that it's a moving target. Every time you turn around a different distro has been the darling of the community, first SLS, then Slackware, then Caldera, RedHat, Mandrake, Ubuntu, etc., and whether or not an application could be reliably migrated from one to the next has always been a hit or miss proposition. A predictable, standard Linux platform with a the clout of Google behind it would go a long, long way in making it a less volatile desktop platform for developers.
Since when is there a right not to be disgusted?
Nice to get some perspective from a clearly disinterested party....
The rich ARE evil. One of the principal lacts of their evil is to sponsor a media-culture that gets ordinary schmucks like yourself to identify emotionally with them, aspire to their condition, and to assume an attack on the values of the truly rich to be a personal threat to your own status and mobility.
Um, no asshat. I promote the rights of the rich to their property for the same reason liberals throw a fit when someone like Rodney King gets beaten up by the cops.
If Rodney King isn't secure in his civil rights, neither are the rest of us. And likewise, if Bill Gates isn't secure in his property rights, we aren't either.
...Ford reintroduces the Model T! All new for 2010!
Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.
And not only are they good for off-shoring, they're good for doing it after taking the tax-payer's money to preserve them.
And that's not even the half of it.
That's not bad for a start - maybe we could do "burned at the stake" for an encore?
This just in, Motor Trend magazine has just named Barack Obama Car of the Year.
or maybe....
BREAKING: Westminster Kennel Club: Michelle Obama wins "Best in Show"
Milli Vanilli must be turning over in their graves.
It seems a bit premature. but hey, whatever they want to do.
Premature, my ass! Milli Vanilli must be turning over in their graves!
Given the vaccine was only necessary because salmonella is an only an issue of consequence in space travel, isn't that kind of begging the question? I mean, this is an infection that kills maybe 30 people a year on earth. Considering what the cost of running the ISS is, don't you think there are more pressing medical issues to spend that kind of money on?
If you bring in commercial interests they become more important and the same science doesn't get done.
Given that no practical, useful scientific knowledge has emerged from the ISS yet, giving it over to the commercial interests suits me just fine. Explain, exactly, why scientists should be entitled to taxpayer support for essentially nothing but to indulge their own curiosity?
Let them pay for their own circle-jerk.