It is not a late night infomercial, it's just the usual piss-poor editing hyping stuff up. Don't know why you got an insightful mod - TFA is actually quite candid about the facts of the matter and also links to a paper examining possible risks. They aren't making wild claims like the summary and are shortly publishing a peer-reviewed paper detailing their results.
The particular item of interest not alluded to in TFS, is about two-thirds of the way down and is this:
The FDA seems to have taken the stance that all stem cells (whether used autologously or not) are drugs. As such, they would need FDA approval, and would likely only be developed by large pharmaceutical companies.
That might partly explain the delay in delivering this therapy to humans - the big pharmaceuticals want in on what could be an enormous opportunity to make money out of people. As usual.
There will be equivalents that meet or exceed the same specifications, but aren't locked down. I personally would really like an iPad. I'm just waiting for one that's not made by Apple. It wont be long.
One day, Physics is going to become indistinguishable from the works of Lewis Carrol and the Lobster Quadrangle will turn out to be a map of our dimension.
And we'll find that if you play that wretched Tim Buron movie backwards, it opens a rift in space-time.
That has been the case. But Google and Apple and Linux might have given MS the shock they need. Disraeli described China as "a sleeping dragon". Microsoft may not be dissimilar. They have vast financial resources, an enormous userbase. What they may be capable of if they wake up and use that could be fantastic. And I think we're now starting to see signs that they're doing so. Windows 7 is a nice jump forward. The Courier looks interesting. Bing is as good as Google (actually, the image search is a bit nicer). Interesting times, I say.:)
This is going to sound like I'm being facetious, but I'm actually not. Try playing nethack when you travel. The hardware requirements are *a lot* lower and it'll drag you in just as Civ IV would. Yes, it's taking an approach of giving up and doing something else, but the end result - having fun playing a game on your available hardware - will be the same.
You are right that a keyboard is better than handwriting, but other than edge cases, voice recognition is not better than handwriting. Aside from being less reliable (even if it hears what you say, it can still get into trouble over the which witch problem), it is also a problem in any environment where you are not alone and it's not noticeably faster than handwriting. At least no implementaion I've ever seen is. But the thing is, although a keyboard is what I use when I'm sitting at a desk and writing and need to input a lot of text, there are a lot of situations where I'm not at a desk and thus a keyboard becomes a bloody nuisance and situations where I just want to make some jottings. There are even a number of situations where I actually want to draw my notes - circles and lines, etc. Personally, I think this could be really useful.
Similar here. If MS don't fuck this up, I really want it. It looks a little small, but it might be okay. Basically I really want an iPad. I'm actually seriously tempted to get one. But there are two things stopping me - I want good handwriting recognition with a stylus and I want it to be open to third party software and development without one company's approval. The first may appear on the iPad but there's no sign of it at present. The lattter I understand is not likely to appear on the iPad short of it being hacked like the iPhone which doesn't meet my needs. Now the Courier might still disappoint, but I have enough hope to hang on a bit for more details.
It's certainly the case in the UK (where civil unions are legal anyway, mind you). This discussion is about the USA but I would be pretty surprised if it wasn't the case there also. Banks care about your income. If you are half of a couple both earning, that's relevant regardless of the genders involved. Banks don't lend out of a social duty, they lend because they want to make money back off you. If something makes you a better bet, they'll be considering that.
I think what he's getting at is what the fuck does someone's orientation matter in an online game? And fairs fair, if everyone had that attitude what would be the big deal?
You are evidently completely ignorant, and will only ever listen to right-wing anti-science propaganda. Fail.
The Times is a major UK newspaper and hardly a source of "right-wing anti-science propaganda". Not that right-wing / left-wing have anything to do with science. The truth is not a partisan issue. I asked you why I should take the word of some random poster on Slashdot over a major newspaper which states the scientists themselves have admitted deleting data, I asked where your citation was. You reply with "Fail". Yep - you really support your case, don't you?
Oooo, you're a twisty bugger.:) The OP used "denier" to cover everyone that didn't accept AGW as an accepted fact, he included genuine skeptics which covers me. If you're saying "denier" just applies to people who say AGW is false and don't apply it to people who merely say it's not sufficiently proven, then we're good. I'd caution you to be wary of the term, though, as it's becoming a generic slur to use at anyone who is critical of AGW whether in whole or in part. And you don't want to use imprecise terms, do you?:)
They did obstruct FOI requests, and Phil Jones stated he would prefer to destroy the data rather than let an individual access it, but did any data actually get deliberately destroyed? Maybe you can point me to the specific email that says this. Until then, I think that it is a vague claim.
Both of the first two reflect very, very poorly on the CRU establishing intent to conceal their data and prevent any chance of examining the validity of the data used in conclusions. As to data being deliberately destroyed, that is confirmed here. Now they say it was to save space. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But we have confirmed that they had the intent to prevent others getting hold of their data and that they did destroy data and there's bugger all reason to not keep data in this day and age, imo. In this particular case, it was actually illegal to dispose of the data as FOI requires they keep it. I've worked in such environments - we had piles of this stuff for legal reasons. Anyway, you can being concerned about it being a vague claim now, so there's that, at least.
Oh please, it was obviously too extreme to be anything other than a paraphrase of an idea. Certainly not a quote.
Well you were responding to my post and there's nothing in there that you could paraphrase as you did. You say this, and other points, are illustrative of what denialists believe. You seem to have missed that my original post was an objection to the way some describe those who don't accept AGW as proven with as "denialists" and argue against what "denialists" supposedly believe rather than what the person they are talking to actually believes. You're providing a great example of this.
As to this:
Since you claim not to be a denialist then obviously it couldn't be about you, could it?
Well, yes, I do think you're talking about me when you say denialist, actually, because your very first post began with this:
Actually, it is quite reasonable to say what the deniers will be satisfied with because they are so predictable. For example, look at your own post:
Do try and remember what you wrote two posts ago.:)
Regards,
H.
It's a pertinent question. When someone claims that there is effectively no evidence in favor of AGW, they'd damn well better know what is actually being written in the relevant science journals otherwise it's little different than what the creationists do. i.e. a YEC claiming evolution doesn't exist ought to be fairly knowledgeable of any scientific papers on the subject of evolution just as AGW deniers. This isn't an unreasonable request, that is that if your going to make a claim either way you ought to know what the hell you're talking about.
A fair point and one Hell of a lot better put (and more politely) than the GP. But it's essentially a different point to the one the GP was making. He was stating that anyone who says they don't know if AGW is reasonably certain or not is a "denier" and believes the default position should be that we take it on faith that AGW is correct and that it is a binary affair: you believe in AGW or you're a "denier". I, like many others, fall into the agnostic position, for want of a better term. Your point is a very valid rebuttal to the "atheist" position, those that say categorically that there is no AGW. And truly, your logic is correct, imo. My point, and I hope it hasn't become lost in this, is that it is wrong to shout "denier" at those who are simply skeptical but that unfortunately this is what appears to be happening quite a lot right now. Certainly there are examples in the comments here on Slashdot and I've seen that logic (I use the term loosely here) in the mainstream media. I think there are few if any people who say that the climate isn't changing - it's the climate, that's what it does.;) There probably aren't that many who say that man isn't having an effect on the climate (I think we probably are). But there are many that don't know what that effect is and so far haven't been convinced that AGW is correct (to a reasonable degree). I say it's wrong to label such people as deniers, yet this seems to be popular.
This is off-topic, but I'm probably an odd case. I originally thought that AGW was very probably the correct. I grew up learning about global warming and, not being an expert on climate science, I worked on the logic that a lot of people who studied it in depth with no apparent motive to misrepresent it said it was so, therefore my best course of action in any case where I was required to act according to whether AGW was true or not was to assume that it was. Also, a few poorly thought out stunts by groups funded by Exxon and pals helped me look on those arguing against AGW with great suspicion.
Now I haven't undergone some great conversion and started denouncing AGW as a huge conspiracy or anything. But I've since had some first-hand experience with bias, propaganda and selective reporting in the mainstream media on the subject of AGW. Not in the acceptable manner of refuting AGW critics with logic or data, but with simple ad hominems, suppression and out-of-hand dismissals. And we've seen examples here and there of the same behaviour in the academic community. Having worked in academia, I also came across a frightening amount of group think on the issue of AGW and, though AGW may even be correct, I have seen first hand that a lot of its proponents are arguing it on faith rather than facts. That's very disturbing. And also in this time, I've seen it shift from "Global Warming" to (when the former turned out to be too hard to prove) to "Climate change" which is pretty much irrefutable, and pretty much useless as well. I've read more on the subject and realised just how very complex this really is. We're a long way from the 'pollutants build up in the upper atmosphere and trap heat on Earth like a greenhouse' that I was given in school. I don't know that AGW is false, but exposure and interest have caused me to move my position to one of thinking we don't have enough certainty to say 'yes' or 'no' yet, or more accurately, enough to say it's reasonably probable. Naturally I object t
You see, you go wrong on the very first line of your post. If I ask you what 5 + 3 gives and tell you to pick an answer from [1,7,9,11] then that's no good at all. And your post is similar. You list a few positions which you have created so that you can point out what is wrong with them and tell me to choose which applies to me? Well none of them, I'm afraid, or have you not read the posts you are replying to? I think we're more or less done here, but I'll cover the last few bits of your post.
I merely stated that the term "denier" applies to you, and pointed out your defensiveness about being labeled as such
Great logic - I'm a "denier" because you say so and this is confirmed by my saying I'm not because rejecting a label is a sure sign of guilt. In other words: if he says he's not a commie traitor, he must be, because that's exactly what a commie traitor would say.
The facetiousness was value-added content just for my own amusement
It's good that you can amuse yourself. I'm afraid the rest of the world probably just saw it as ad hominems.
Since you seem to be a "skeptic" about one particular field of science based on no reasoning whatsoever (other than "It's so complicated, waaaa"), why not the rest of them?
I explained this. Falsifiability, controlled experiments, not to mention how stupid it is for you to suggest man's precise effect upon the climate and in what ways is as obvious as gravity's effect upon ourselves and that one who is uncommitted on the former might as well dismiss the latter. And as to "it's so complicated, waaaa", my first inclination is to tell you to grow up, but honestly, I make no apologies for not understanding all the intricacies of how the climate works and I grow tired of you implying that it's easy.
Actually, it is quite reasonable to say what the deniers will be satisfied with because they are so predictable. For example, look at your own post:
Complain about being called a denier
Make vague and unsubstantiated accusations about "fudging data" and "destroying data" (with the implication of trying to hide the facts)
Be the victim: "Our papers get censored. It's all a conspiracy!"
Mention Phil Jones - imply he is the antichrist where ever possible
Well there're all sorts of things wrong with the above. For a start, you criticise me for complaining about being called a denier. Here's an experiment: I'll call you a denier and we'll see if you reject the label or accept it. Rejecting a label is the natural response when one thinks it wrong. Now you may or may not think I'm wrong to reject it, but saying "Ah-ha! You complain about being called a denier" carries no weight. You would do the same yourself. I will go further though and point out why the label is wrong. I said I don't know if AGW is true or false, not that it is false. It is improper to label such a position as a "denier" but that is how the label is being repeatedly used. You also criticise my response for being predictable, as if that somehow invalidates it. If I'm repeatedly asked what 2+2 equals and I keep on answering 4, do you start dismiss the point when you'd rather the answer was 5 by saying I'm "predictable"? This sniping has no value and I'm sure you're better than this.
Make vague and unsubstantiated accusations about "fudging data" and "destroying data" (with the implication of trying to hide the facts)
Well, it's not that vague really. We've all seen and read the emails by now. We know that data that was used as the basis for published work was deliberately deleted rather than allow others to examine it. If for some reason you haven't read these emails, they're there for you to look at, just search for "Climate Research Unit" and "emails".
"Our papers get censored. It's all a conspiracy!"
Quote marks imply you're quoting something. I know the above didn't appear in my post, nor did something equivalent. Making up things another party has said in order to knock it down is what is known as a straw man. If you find yourself resorting to straw men, you should examine your argument.
Mention Phil Jones - imply he is the antichrist where ever possible
Your reading comprehension is poor in this instance, I'm afraid. Go back and read my post. You'll find that my accusation was that the poster I was talking to did not understand climate science himself because I hardly thought that he was Phil Jones posting under a funny username. You see? I was actually using Phil Jones in this example as an expert who does know a lot about climate science. That you misrepresent what I said so badly shows that you are replying not to what I wrote, but what you either think I wrote or what you would like to me have written. I am hoping this is misunderstanding on your part rather than deliberately trying to mislead.
It is all cookie cutter stuff. You did miss a few points, though.
Ah, I take it back. You are replying to what you would like me to have said, rather than what I did say. The reason I didn't make any of the points you go on to say I "missed" is because those are not my points. You have decided that I fall into a category and even go so far as to correct me on how to represent my beliefs. This is what I am objecting to. Surely you think it is wrong to attribute beliefs to people that they don't actually hold for the purpose of labelling and dismissing them?
Goodness! By using terminology like "hurt wittle feewings" and extrapolating from my skepticism about AGW that I must also disbelieve evolution, medical science and refuse to fly because I think aviation is unproven, you have completely refuted my own post which was a mere logical argument following from what you said. Well played, sir, well played.
But just so I don't get sucked into the same vortex of facetiousness that you have, I'll respond to some of your points anyway. You're likening of climate science to current medical science is very unfounded. The foundations of practical medical science (a) has been developed over a very long time whilst climate science in its current form is very recent and far more significantly (b) medical science is based on falsifiable experiments - many of them. Do you want to list some of the falsifiable experiments that climate scientists have carried out? We can compare them to the millions of repeated experiments that form the foundation of modern medical science. And remember, that medical science is frequently limited in scope. We try this single drug on 500 hundred mice with cancer and note its effect. The climate is a massive holistic system that makes it near impossible to isolate factors in the same way. Climate scientists simulate falsifiable experiments by looking for "natural" experiments in history and the environment today and that's valid, but it's not the same thing by a long shot. So we are very valid in making distinctions between medical science and climate science.
And I think your parts about heliocentrism and gravity are hillarious. The implication is that you think anyone who doubts AGW might as well doubt gravity. Really? They're equivalent in their obviousness? You're really prepared to say: "Well if you don't notice the impact of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and how that may cause increasing humidity from the oceans causing a runaway effect which is exasperated by released glacial methane but somewhat mitigated by the increased albedo of the planet and the greater level of carbon-absorbing oceanic life-forms and plantlife then you might as well just doubt that there's a force that stops you floating into space, moron."
Really, the point I made was "without studying all the material yourself and researching it, how can you state what the Truth is with great certainty". Do you want to explain how "how much of the literature have you read?" refutes my point? Because I don't see a connection. I say we don't know, and you respond with "well you don't know." That doesn't follow.
And for more poor logic, no, I didn't google "confirmation bias". I find it tiresome how many people try to argue by Google, as if looking up a word is akin to making an argument. You might want to explain how someone who says that they don't know the answer and haven't reached a conclusion, is guilty of "confirmation bias". But who knows. Maybe if you google "relevance" you'll be able to cut and paste the results into your reply.;)
If you want to reply again, this time please actually argue points, rather than a spiel about scientology and other attempts at argument through mockery.
And here's a good example of how destructive this AGW debate is becoming. The climate is monstrously complex. I personally don't think we've reached the point that we can argue with sufficient certainty how much different factors contribute to climate change and in what ways, but my opinion is irrelevant. There are lots of reasons to want to cut down on some of the proposed causes of global warming. Cars generate pollution that is bad for us regardless of any effect on the climate. Coal power is probably worse still. Oil is dwindling and we have a world economy founded on it. These reasons alone are grounds for action. But increasingly, everything is becoming focused on AGW. You'll find people arguing till they're blue in the face that CO2 can't have a big effect on the climate and that we should all carry on driving. You'll find others (particularly in the mainstream media) pointing and screaming "denier" at anyone who doesn't consider AGW an accepted and final conclusion. But true skeptics and people who say: "we have to get off oil, we have to develop public transport" are just disappearing in the noise or being attacked by increasingly factionalised groups from both sides.
Mankind is undeniably wreaking terrible damage on the environment, and I'm speaking as someone who tentatively considers AGW to probably false based on what we know at present. But just like US politics has become a partisan mess where neither of your two parties could ever meet a sane person's policies by themselves, so is the Environment becoming an issue where you choose your faction and get the complete Belief Package to go with it - you're an environmentalist of an anti-environmentalist. Doesn't matter if you believe CO2 doesn't contribute significantly but want to stop Indonesia being deforested to produce palm oil for rich Western countries. Doesn't matter if you know that carbon trading is the only way to save the planet but don't really give a fuck about the extinction of the wild tiger. Pick a partisan side and become part of it - that's all the media allows and I'm including debates like this one on Slashdot. As a skeptic of AGW, I can't count the times people have condemned me for wanting to watch the world's environment ruined by human activity on a range of issues. I'm confident I'll have donated more money and time to environmental groups than most of my critics (IFAW for a start), but AGW is polarising people far more than any issue as complex and rarely understood as this has a right to do so. Much like Republican and Democrat partisanship wreaks havoc on sensible policies in the USA, the hysteria over AGW is growing to the point where it similarly impairs reasoned debate.
Who's to blame for this? Well companies like Exxon fucked up to begin with by paying lobbyists to undermine AGW proponents meaning any legitimate skeptics today are tarred with that brush repeatedly, even though the oil companies activities in this area were fairly limited and ultimately pathetic and more harmful to themselves than AGW. Then an increasing number of climate scientists decided that in fighting monsters, they'd become some themselves and you got things like contrived hockey sticks and dubious cut off dates for historical trends and leading scientist destroying data rather than hand it over (I mean who destroys data these days? Who? Even my home PC has version control on it these days). If anything, the scientists have done a better job at propaganda than the oil companies did (should be expected, scientists tend to be pretty smart). But science itself, founded on skepticism rather than getting grant money for producing conclusions that suit the popular beliefs? It's getting buried because the media is on a big crusade. Whether or not AGW is correct to a significant extent, it's undeniable that a lot of the mainstream media are loving being noble and preachy on the subject; they continue to shout as if they are revealing a great truth in the face of vast capitalist conspiracies to silence them, ignoring that they've long sinc
Well for a start, calling those of us who have some skepticism "deniers" doesn't do you any favours. As to telling us what we will or wont be satisfied with is not your place either. We've just seen some of the leading proponents of AGW fudging data, destroying data, using personal influence in attempting to keep critical papers from being included in reports. If a second body can help bring some credibility back to the debate, then I'm all for it. The interest of anyone should be the truth and it's insulting to say that anyone who questions what they're told is doing so because they are trying to conceal the truth. It's by questioning that the truth is found and we shouldn't criticise people for questioning and saying someone is a "denier" when all they're saying is "the evidence hasn't convinced me" is wrong. And let's not even get started on your characterisations about black helicopters and commies. You think you understand climate science? I'd say you don't. The climate is very, very complicated and I doubt Phil Jones of the CRU is posting on Slashdot under the username Bemopolis. So don't mock other people who admit they don't know how the climate works and ask for explanations.
that sounds like you care more about your personal crusade against virgin than it does about helping your friends choose the service that's best for them
You love to judge people, don't you? Go back and read what I wrote fully. I said that "I always explain why I don't like them and suggest competitors." I see no reason why I shouldn't tell people that Virgin are trying to undermine the basis of the Internet by double-charging all parties and people are free to take or leave that in their considerations as they wish - many of my friends do care about that once they learn about it - it's called ethics and thinking about society as a whole. Very luckily for me, lots of my friends are exactly that sort of person. I would be doing them a disservice if I didn't tell them things about Virgin that concern me (and them, even if they weren't aware of it). Might as well condemn me for telling someone that a company they might invest in uses child labour or pollutes the oceans for "caring more about my personal crusade than what's best for them". They can decide what's best for them when they learn all the facts I am able to give them. Or do you think I have to limit my friends choices to being based solely on money? They wouldn't like that if they knew.
So you going to apologise or continue to condemn me for a personal crusade (loaded terminology, if ever there were).
Not only are they deceitful in their advertising (few if any get the advertised speeds), but Virgin are also one of the biggest enemies of fair Internet access in the UK. Witness the CEO of Virgin Media's reported comments that net neutrality is "a load of bollocks" and that Virgin Media are arranging deals with various content providers to deliver their content faster over their competitors.
Virgin can promise me whatever amount of bandwidth they like (not that they've ever delivered on their advertising from what I hear), I'll never support them and I'll continue to explain to those that ask my advice (I'm one of the go-to technical people for a lot of friends) exactly why I don't like them and suggest competitors.
Sorry, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I consider it New Age nonsense because it stemmed from misunderstanding science, much the same way that people misunderstand Evolution as a progression from lesser to superior lifeforms and other popular misconceptions. The different hemispheres of the brain specialise in different sets of functionality. The popular Left-Right brain meme is wrong because (a) it misrepresents these sets as "artist" and "scientist" which is false both because the hemispheres don't break down like that and because the dichotomy between art and science is predominantly a preconception of modern Western culture that is addicted to stereotypes, (b) ignores the capacity of different parts of the brain to take on work "belonging" to other parts and (c) presupposes that any excellence in one area precludes excellence in another area unless you're some sort of genius abberation. I cheerfully and forefully reject all of those and I'll draw you a picture to show it too, if you find this argument too Right-brain.;)
I may be wrong, but I know of no human composer that uses strictly computations of mathematical formulas to generate the notes they write down. Humans create music by feeling, and real music inspires emotions. I haven't taken the Pepsi challenge, but I suspect one could easily distinguish machine sound from music, as one could convey feeling and emotion and the other simply math.
Well I'd say you've just found the first human composer that uses strictly computations of mathematical formulas to generate the music. That's what the article is about, really. The computer is really just the implementation of his mathematics. As to humans writing music according to their feelings, well, each their own. I can do maths in my head that other people require paper and pencil for, doesn't mean that those limited to doing it the "hard" way produce an incorrect answer. Same goes with a machine using maths to produce something some people can do by "feeling". That said, I think you do classical musicians a diservice in saying they produce music by feeling. Feeling alone isn't enough - they also require a lot of study and thought. Mozart, since this article references him, was being drilled in music from his first years. Genius may look like magic from the outside, but from the inside it's often a Hell of a lot of effort and analysis.
As regards your point about real music inspires emotions - the implication is that to do so it must be put together by someone with emotions. This is false unless you believe that other things that inspire emotions, beautiful landscapes, the Moon rising, bird song and the smell of lillies were also deliberately crafted to produce emotions in us. (Or I suppose, that you don't find any of these things stirring, but I'd rather not contemplate that).
For what it's worth, my opinion is that if we do produce AIs, then they are our children if we are their creators. Shame on us if we produce intelligences that can't appreciate or produce beauty. What would be the point of them?
Slashdot Mirror
It is not a late night infomercial, it's just the usual piss-poor editing hyping stuff up. Don't know why you got an insightful mod - TFA is actually quite candid about the facts of the matter and also links to a paper examining possible risks. They aren't making wild claims like the summary and are shortly publishing a peer-reviewed paper detailing their results.
The particular item of interest not alluded to in TFS, is about two-thirds of the way down and is this:
There will be equivalents that meet or exceed the same specifications, but aren't locked down. I personally would really like an iPad. I'm just waiting for one that's not made by Apple. It wont be long.
One day, Physics is going to become indistinguishable from the works of Lewis Carrol and the Lobster Quadrangle will turn out to be a map of our dimension.
And we'll find that if you play that wretched Tim Buron movie backwards, it opens a rift in space-time.
That has been the case. But Google and Apple and Linux might have given MS the shock they need. Disraeli described China as "a sleeping dragon". Microsoft may not be dissimilar. They have vast financial resources, an enormous userbase. What they may be capable of if they wake up and use that could be fantastic. And I think we're now starting to see signs that they're doing so. Windows 7 is a nice jump forward. The Courier looks interesting. Bing is as good as Google (actually, the image search is a bit nicer). Interesting times, I say.
This is going to sound like I'm being facetious, but I'm actually not. Try playing nethack when you travel. The hardware requirements are *a lot* lower and it'll drag you in just as Civ IV would. Yes, it's taking an approach of giving up and doing something else, but the end result - having fun playing a game on your available hardware - will be the same.
You are right that a keyboard is better than handwriting, but other than edge cases, voice recognition is not better than handwriting. Aside from being less reliable (even if it hears what you say, it can still get into trouble over the which witch problem), it is also a problem in any environment where you are not alone and it's not noticeably faster than handwriting. At least no implementaion I've ever seen is. But the thing is, although a keyboard is what I use when I'm sitting at a desk and writing and need to input a lot of text, there are a lot of situations where I'm not at a desk and thus a keyboard becomes a bloody nuisance and situations where I just want to make some jottings. There are even a number of situations where I actually want to draw my notes - circles and lines, etc. Personally, I think this could be really useful.
Similar here. If MS don't fuck this up, I really want it. It looks a little small, but it might be okay. Basically I really want an iPad. I'm actually seriously tempted to get one. But there are two things stopping me - I want good handwriting recognition with a stylus and I want it to be open to third party software and development without one company's approval. The first may appear on the iPad but there's no sign of it at present. The lattter I understand is not likely to appear on the iPad short of it being hacked like the iPhone which doesn't meet my needs. Now the Courier might still disappoint, but I have enough hope to hang on a bit for more details.
It's certainly the case in the UK (where civil unions are legal anyway, mind you). This discussion is about the USA but I would be pretty surprised if it wasn't the case there also. Banks care about your income. If you are half of a couple both earning, that's relevant regardless of the genders involved. Banks don't lend out of a social duty, they lend because they want to make money back off you. If something makes you a better bet, they'll be considering that.
I think what he's getting at is what the fuck does someone's orientation matter in an online game? And fairs fair, if everyone had that attitude what would be the big deal?
The Times is a major UK newspaper and hardly a source of "right-wing anti-science propaganda". Not that right-wing / left-wing have anything to do with science. The truth is not a partisan issue. I asked you why I should take the word of some random poster on Slashdot over a major newspaper which states the scientists themselves have admitted deleting data, I asked where your citation was. You reply with "Fail". Yep - you really support your case, don't you?
My bad. I read an article in the Times and set it above the word of a random poster on Slashdot. Citation?
Oooo, you're a twisty bugger.
Both of the first two reflect very, very poorly on the CRU establishing intent to conceal their data and prevent any chance of examining the validity of the data used in conclusions. As to data being deliberately destroyed, that is confirmed here. Now they say it was to save space. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But we have confirmed that they had the intent to prevent others getting hold of their data and that they did destroy data and there's bugger all reason to not keep data in this day and age, imo. In this particular case, it was actually illegal to dispose of the data as FOI requires they keep it. I've worked in such environments - we had piles of this stuff for legal reasons. Anyway, you can being concerned about it being a vague claim now, so there's that, at least.
Well you were responding to my post and there's nothing in there that you could paraphrase as you did. You say this, and other points, are illustrative of what denialists believe. You seem to have missed that my original post was an objection to the way some describe those who don't accept AGW as proven with as "denialists" and argue against what "denialists" supposedly believe rather than what the person they are talking to actually believes. You're providing a great example of this.
As to this:
Well, yes, I do think you're talking about me when you say denialist, actually, because your very first post began with this:
Do try and remember what you wrote two posts ago. :)
Regards,
H.
A fair point and one Hell of a lot better put (and more politely) than the GP. But it's essentially a different point to the one the GP was making. He was stating that anyone who says they don't know if AGW is reasonably certain or not is a "denier" and believes the default position should be that we take it on faith that AGW is correct and that it is a binary affair: you believe in AGW or you're a "denier". I, like many others, fall into the agnostic position, for want of a better term. Your point is a very valid rebuttal to the "atheist" position, those that say categorically that there is no AGW. And truly, your logic is correct, imo. My point, and I hope it hasn't become lost in this, is that it is wrong to shout "denier" at those who are simply skeptical but that unfortunately this is what appears to be happening quite a lot right now. Certainly there are examples in the comments here on Slashdot and I've seen that logic (I use the term loosely here) in the mainstream media. I think there are few if any people who say that the climate isn't changing - it's the climate, that's what it does. ;) There probably aren't that many who say that man isn't having an effect on the climate (I think we probably are). But there are many that don't know what that effect is and so far haven't been convinced that AGW is correct (to a reasonable degree). I say it's wrong to label such people as deniers, yet this seems to be popular.
This is off-topic, but I'm probably an odd case. I originally thought that AGW was very probably the correct. I grew up learning about global warming and, not being an expert on climate science, I worked on the logic that a lot of people who studied it in depth with no apparent motive to misrepresent it said it was so, therefore my best course of action in any case where I was required to act according to whether AGW was true or not was to assume that it was. Also, a few poorly thought out stunts by groups funded by Exxon and pals helped me look on those arguing against AGW with great suspicion.
Now I haven't undergone some great conversion and started denouncing AGW as a huge conspiracy or anything. But I've since had some first-hand experience with bias, propaganda and selective reporting in the mainstream media on the subject of AGW. Not in the acceptable manner of refuting AGW critics with logic or data, but with simple ad hominems, suppression and out-of-hand dismissals. And we've seen examples here and there of the same behaviour in the academic community. Having worked in academia, I also came across a frightening amount of group think on the issue of AGW and, though AGW may even be correct, I have seen first hand that a lot of its proponents are arguing it on faith rather than facts. That's very disturbing. And also in this time, I've seen it shift from "Global Warming" to (when the former turned out to be too hard to prove) to "Climate change" which is pretty much irrefutable, and pretty much useless as well. I've read more on the subject and realised just how very complex this really is. We're a long way from the 'pollutants build up in the upper atmosphere and trap heat on Earth like a greenhouse' that I was given in school. I don't know that AGW is false, but exposure and interest have caused me to move my position to one of thinking we don't have enough certainty to say 'yes' or 'no' yet, or more accurately, enough to say it's reasonably probable. Naturally I object t
You see, you go wrong on the very first line of your post. If I ask you what 5 + 3 gives and tell you to pick an answer from [1,7,9,11] then that's no good at all. And your post is similar. You list a few positions which you have created so that you can point out what is wrong with them and tell me to choose which applies to me? Well none of them, I'm afraid, or have you not read the posts you are replying to? I think we're more or less done here, but I'll cover the last few bits of your post.
Great logic - I'm a "denier" because you say so and this is confirmed by my saying I'm not because rejecting a label is a sure sign of guilt. In other words: if he says he's not a commie traitor, he must be, because that's exactly what a commie traitor would say.
It's good that you can amuse yourself. I'm afraid the rest of the world probably just saw it as ad hominems.
I explained this. Falsifiability, controlled experiments, not to mention how stupid it is for you to suggest man's precise effect upon the climate and in what ways is as obvious as gravity's effect upon ourselves and that one who is uncommitted on the former might as well dismiss the latter. And as to "it's so complicated, waaaa", my first inclination is to tell you to grow up, but honestly, I make no apologies for not understanding all the intricacies of how the climate works and I grow tired of you implying that it's easy.
I'm probably done here,
Regards
H.
Well there're all sorts of things wrong with the above. For a start, you criticise me for complaining about being called a denier. Here's an experiment: I'll call you a denier and we'll see if you reject the label or accept it. Rejecting a label is the natural response when one thinks it wrong. Now you may or may not think I'm wrong to reject it, but saying "Ah-ha! You complain about being called a denier" carries no weight. You would do the same yourself. I will go further though and point out why the label is wrong. I said I don't know if AGW is true or false, not that it is false. It is improper to label such a position as a "denier" but that is how the label is being repeatedly used. You also criticise my response for being predictable, as if that somehow invalidates it. If I'm repeatedly asked what 2+2 equals and I keep on answering 4, do you start dismiss the point when you'd rather the answer was 5 by saying I'm "predictable"? This sniping has no value and I'm sure you're better than this.
Well, it's not that vague really. We've all seen and read the emails by now. We know that data that was used as the basis for published work was deliberately deleted rather than allow others to examine it. If for some reason you haven't read these emails, they're there for you to look at, just search for "Climate Research Unit" and "emails".
We don't know that. And as a skeptic, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Goodness! By using terminology like "hurt wittle feewings" and extrapolating from my skepticism about AGW that I must also disbelieve evolution, medical science and refuse to fly because I think aviation is unproven, you have completely refuted my own post which was a mere logical argument following from what you said. Well played, sir, well played.
But just so I don't get sucked into the same vortex of facetiousness that you have, I'll respond to some of your points anyway. You're likening of climate science to current medical science is very unfounded. The foundations of practical medical science (a) has been developed over a very long time whilst climate science in its current form is very recent and far more significantly (b) medical science is based on falsifiable experiments - many of them. Do you want to list some of the falsifiable experiments that climate scientists have carried out? We can compare them to the millions of repeated experiments that form the foundation of modern medical science. And remember, that medical science is frequently limited in scope. We try this single drug on 500 hundred mice with cancer and note its effect. The climate is a massive holistic system that makes it near impossible to isolate factors in the same way. Climate scientists simulate falsifiable experiments by looking for "natural" experiments in history and the environment today and that's valid, but it's not the same thing by a long shot. So we are very valid in making distinctions between medical science and climate science.
And I think your parts about heliocentrism and gravity are hillarious. The implication is that you think anyone who doubts AGW might as well doubt gravity. Really? They're equivalent in their obviousness? You're really prepared to say: "Well if you don't notice the impact of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and how that may cause increasing humidity from the oceans causing a runaway effect which is exasperated by released glacial methane but somewhat mitigated by the increased albedo of the planet and the greater level of carbon-absorbing oceanic life-forms and plantlife then you might as well just doubt that there's a force that stops you floating into space, moron."
Really, the point I made was "without studying all the material yourself and researching it, how can you state what the Truth is with great certainty". Do you want to explain how "how much of the literature have you read?" refutes my point? Because I don't see a connection. I say we don't know, and you respond with "well you don't know." That doesn't follow.
And for more poor logic, no, I didn't google "confirmation bias". I find it tiresome how many people try to argue by Google, as if looking up a word is akin to making an argument. You might want to explain how someone who says that they don't know the answer and haven't reached a conclusion, is guilty of "confirmation bias". But who knows. Maybe if you google "relevance" you'll be able to cut and paste the results into your reply.
If you want to reply again, this time please actually argue points, rather than a spiel about scientology and other attempts at argument through mockery.
Regards,
H.
And here's a good example of how destructive this AGW debate is becoming. The climate is monstrously complex. I personally don't think we've reached the point that we can argue with sufficient certainty how much different factors contribute to climate change and in what ways, but my opinion is irrelevant. There are lots of reasons to want to cut down on some of the proposed causes of global warming. Cars generate pollution that is bad for us regardless of any effect on the climate. Coal power is probably worse still. Oil is dwindling and we have a world economy founded on it. These reasons alone are grounds for action. But increasingly, everything is becoming focused on AGW. You'll find people arguing till they're blue in the face that CO2 can't have a big effect on the climate and that we should all carry on driving. You'll find others (particularly in the mainstream media) pointing and screaming "denier" at anyone who doesn't consider AGW an accepted and final conclusion. But true skeptics and people who say: "we have to get off oil, we have to develop public transport" are just disappearing in the noise or being attacked by increasingly factionalised groups from both sides.
Mankind is undeniably wreaking terrible damage on the environment, and I'm speaking as someone who tentatively considers AGW to probably false based on what we know at present. But just like US politics has become a partisan mess where neither of your two parties could ever meet a sane person's policies by themselves, so is the Environment becoming an issue where you choose your faction and get the complete Belief Package to go with it - you're an environmentalist of an anti-environmentalist. Doesn't matter if you believe CO2 doesn't contribute significantly but want to stop Indonesia being deforested to produce palm oil for rich Western countries. Doesn't matter if you know that carbon trading is the only way to save the planet but don't really give a fuck about the extinction of the wild tiger. Pick a partisan side and become part of it - that's all the media allows and I'm including debates like this one on Slashdot. As a skeptic of AGW, I can't count the times people have condemned me for wanting to watch the world's environment ruined by human activity on a range of issues. I'm confident I'll have donated more money and time to environmental groups than most of my critics (IFAW for a start), but AGW is polarising people far more than any issue as complex and rarely understood as this has a right to do so. Much like Republican and Democrat partisanship wreaks havoc on sensible policies in the USA, the hysteria over AGW is growing to the point where it similarly impairs reasoned debate.
Who's to blame for this? Well companies like Exxon fucked up to begin with by paying lobbyists to undermine AGW proponents meaning any legitimate skeptics today are tarred with that brush repeatedly, even though the oil companies activities in this area were fairly limited and ultimately pathetic and more harmful to themselves than AGW. Then an increasing number of climate scientists decided that in fighting monsters, they'd become some themselves and you got things like contrived hockey sticks and dubious cut off dates for historical trends and leading scientist destroying data rather than hand it over (I mean who destroys data these days? Who? Even my home PC has version control on it these days). If anything, the scientists have done a better job at propaganda than the oil companies did (should be expected, scientists tend to be pretty smart). But science itself, founded on skepticism rather than getting grant money for producing conclusions that suit the popular beliefs? It's getting buried because the media is on a big crusade. Whether or not AGW is correct to a significant extent, it's undeniable that a lot of the mainstream media are loving being noble and preachy on the subject; they continue to shout as if they are revealing a great truth in the face of vast capitalist conspiracies to silence them, ignoring that they've long sinc
Well for a start, calling those of us who have some skepticism "deniers" doesn't do you any favours. As to telling us what we will or wont be satisfied with is not your place either. We've just seen some of the leading proponents of AGW fudging data, destroying data, using personal influence in attempting to keep critical papers from being included in reports. If a second body can help bring some credibility back to the debate, then I'm all for it. The interest of anyone should be the truth and it's insulting to say that anyone who questions what they're told is doing so because they are trying to conceal the truth. It's by questioning that the truth is found and we shouldn't criticise people for questioning and saying someone is a "denier" when all they're saying is "the evidence hasn't convinced me" is wrong. And let's not even get started on your characterisations about black helicopters and commies. You think you understand climate science? I'd say you don't. The climate is very, very complicated and I doubt Phil Jones of the CRU is posting on Slashdot under the username Bemopolis. So don't mock other people who admit they don't know how the climate works and ask for explanations.
You love to judge people, don't you? Go back and read what I wrote fully. I said that "I always explain why I don't like them and suggest competitors." I see no reason why I shouldn't tell people that Virgin are trying to undermine the basis of the Internet by double-charging all parties and people are free to take or leave that in their considerations as they wish - many of my friends do care about that once they learn about it - it's called ethics and thinking about society as a whole. Very luckily for me, lots of my friends are exactly that sort of person. I would be doing them a disservice if I didn't tell them things about Virgin that concern me (and them, even if they weren't aware of it). Might as well condemn me for telling someone that a company they might invest in uses child labour or pollutes the oceans for "caring more about my personal crusade than what's best for them". They can decide what's best for them when they learn all the facts I am able to give them. Or do you think I have to limit my friends choices to being based solely on money? They wouldn't like that if they knew.
So you going to apologise or continue to condemn me for a personal crusade (loaded terminology, if ever there were).
Not only are they deceitful in their advertising (few if any get the advertised speeds), but Virgin are also one of the biggest enemies of fair Internet access in the UK. Witness the CEO of Virgin Media's reported comments that net neutrality is "a load of bollocks" and that Virgin Media are arranging deals with various content providers to deliver their content faster over their competitors.
Virgin can promise me whatever amount of bandwidth they like (not that they've ever delivered on their advertising from what I hear), I'll never support them and I'll continue to explain to those that ask my advice (I'm one of the go-to technical people for a lot of friends) exactly why I don't like them and suggest competitors.
It makes me feel good to be in the that top 5%.
Then I congratulate myself on having provoked a person with such obvious taste to register and join the community.
(And thanks!
H.
Sorry, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I consider it New Age nonsense because it stemmed from misunderstanding science, much the same way that people misunderstand Evolution as a progression from lesser to superior lifeforms and other popular misconceptions. The different hemispheres of the brain specialise in different sets of functionality. The popular Left-Right brain meme is wrong because (a) it misrepresents these sets as "artist" and "scientist" which is false both because the hemispheres don't break down like that and because the dichotomy between art and science is predominantly a preconception of modern Western culture that is addicted to stereotypes, (b) ignores the capacity of different parts of the brain to take on work "belonging" to other parts and (c) presupposes that any excellence in one area precludes excellence in another area unless you're some sort of genius abberation. I cheerfully and forefully reject all of those and I'll draw you a picture to show it too, if you find this argument too Right-brain.
Well I'd say you've just found the first human composer that uses strictly computations of mathematical formulas to generate the music. That's what the article is about, really. The computer is really just the implementation of his mathematics. As to humans writing music according to their feelings, well, each their own. I can do maths in my head that other people require paper and pencil for, doesn't mean that those limited to doing it the "hard" way produce an incorrect answer. Same goes with a machine using maths to produce something some people can do by "feeling". That said, I think you do classical musicians a diservice in saying they produce music by feeling. Feeling alone isn't enough - they also require a lot of study and thought. Mozart, since this article references him, was being drilled in music from his first years. Genius may look like magic from the outside, but from the inside it's often a Hell of a lot of effort and analysis.
As regards your point about real music inspires emotions - the implication is that to do so it must be put together by someone with emotions. This is false unless you believe that other things that inspire emotions, beautiful landscapes, the Moon rising, bird song and the smell of lillies were also deliberately crafted to produce emotions in us. (Or I suppose, that you don't find any of these things stirring, but I'd rather not contemplate that).
For what it's worth, my opinion is that if we do produce AIs, then they are our children if we are their creators. Shame on us if we produce intelligences that can't appreciate or produce beauty. What would be the point of them?