I forget where I saw it (possibly on slashdot) but I read an article that there is some evidence that suggests that Toxo makes Humans more "reckless", and that the percentage of people involved in motorcycle accidents that have Toxo is way above the norm.
Considering that it was likely played on lakes or ponds at some point, I would bet throwing a huge rock, may have led to it sinking, and possibly making the thrower wet and cold as well.
I also think it is stupid now that when a team wins like 50 people get their name on the cup. It used to just be like 20-30. I am sorry the Trainer's Assistant Barber, didn't win the Stanley Cup!
First of all, whatever fox says the opposite is likely true.
Secondly I am not saying that I nor anyone else would be reviewing scientific paper for validity. You have to have a certain amount of trust in researchers (more or less for some people's comfort level). The same way as I trust that if I jump off a building I have a reasonable chance of falling down towards the earth, or that if I am driving a car, that my breaks will work.
No what I am saying is presenting "theroy", and explain it as best you can, citing evidence that has been confirmed/reproduced. Both sides. If a group of scientists don't believe is someone Else's theroy, then disprove it. Give evidence, confirmation, etc.... FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Simply saying A) I don't agree with this, throw it out, or B) He must obviously work for big oil, throw out his research or theroy. is BS and has no place in science. Also by NOT disproving it and just casually dismissing it, you are not advancing science one whit.
Perhaps I have only seen the bad parts of this whole debate, but somehow I doubt it.
Many people agree that some bearded Jesus guy did magic a long time ago and was the son of some magic bearded guy in the sky. No one has disproved it so far as I know. Its called faith, not science.
I think the real problem is Climatology itself in that it doesn't seem to want to act like "normal" sciences in that it is very hard to "prove" or "predict" anything. I don't think I have ever heard of a single model that has been able to predict anything. Hell the weather guy can't even get it right and he is only predicting a few days, not decades. The other problem is we are talking about data that spans of decades even hundreds of years, and if you want to look geologic, hundreds of thousands of years. We only have has science for a handful, and reliable data for less than that. The rest as I am sure you know has to be aggregate data, like tree rings, etc... which comes with its own set of variables and factors, etc... Predicting granular variability is going to be hard. So to say it is crazy that there are "skeptics" of these findings is a bit much. I think if people actually knew more, there would be even more skeptics.
Myself I am in the "I am not so sure, however given the consequence, better safer than sorry, and shouldn't we be doing this anyway if only for our environment..."
I saw a really good lecture on TV (TVO) last year about Climate Change 2% and its impact on world food production, with a focus on the political landscape. I couldn't agree more with the guy, in that the hardest part will be convincing the politicians, not the people.
However I am calling into question the methods in which we do science not so much "climate change" in of itself.
Science is a community and as such is given to things like mob rule and external pressure.
All you have to do is look at science in the past and how sometimes the MAJORITY gets it wrong for one reason or another and persecute those that got it right. Over a LONG period of time it always seems to work itself out through additional supportive scientific discovery.
However in the short term it seems to be very susceptible to a whole slew of unscientific factors and it usually takes many years and several breakthroughs to bong the scientists on the head a few times to make them see what is really going on. Science which should be as unbiased has entirely too many other factors muddying the waters.
It always has, and since I don't have a idea how it would change, likely in the foreseeable future always will. In the short term give me dissenting theories and present them in an unbiased fashion as possible and I can make my own decisions on what I believe that you very much. Dismissing someone's argument out of hand simply because you disagree bothers me.
Some of the best science in the world came out of the last 50 years of communist Russia. I don't think anyone would argue that. Russia also make some of the worst ecological disasters in the world at the same time. I think it comes down to what the focus of science is rather than science itself. Focus is likely pretty political or policy driven. Using science to enable the faster extraction of oil, isn't always the same as using science to enable the safer extraction of oil for example. It is driven by what is desired, where the money is, and largely government sponsorship and what their direction is. Science is science, its all progress. Some people when they hear progress they think of evil bad things, when in reality progress is simply moving forward. Perhaps you might not agree with what stick is being advanced, but obviously someone does.
The thing is population growth will have about 10x more effect on the earth than any climate change should it exist.
No one wants to talk about unrestrained population growth. No one wants to talk about trying to control population growth. Look at where it is talking place, Africa and Asia. Are we going to tell them to stop making babies? Are we going to tell Christians (I have no idea about the ideas of other faiths, but likely about the same) that they should be using contraception and abortion?
Anyway everyone makes a big freaking deal about climate change, when in reality the REAL problem is exponential population growth, and people have been accurately projecting that chart for the last 50 years. No one does or even talks about it.
Ya they also said "the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035", which the Dutch agency partly traced to a report on the likely shrinking of glaciers by the year 2350.
That seems like a glaring error.
FACT!: All the Himalayan glaciers WILL be GONE in 25 years OMG!!! CLIMATE CHANGE! YArhggggg!
Ooops: Small addendum... ya... just a tiny thing... rather than all the Himalayan glaciers actually being melted in 25 years, they may likely be shrinking in 340 years. Our bad. This changes nothing however, Climate Change is still real!
Sorry that's a big deal. Not a small inconsequential error. I am not saying that climate change doesn't exist or isn't a concern, I am saying that many of these scientists need to get their acts together, and perhaps re-evaluate their motives and bias.
I will say that mistakes are part of science, and I think it is a very good sign that they themselves brought it forward for scrutiny. That is a very healthy thing. I am not a climatologist so perhaps I just don't get it, however two of those statements of the three actually do seem like a big deal to me in reality and trying to down play it to save face or not try to hurt the climate change "movement" makes me uncomfortable. It could be that they are saying that taken in context with all the other climate change evidence that these things are singular and inconsequential, however I don't think they should be making that assessment of other Scientists work (which likely also does contain a certain amount of mistakes) to justify their own. Its that sort of mindset that makes me terribly critical of the whole affair.
I know one of the things that drove me to build my own systems, was that Dell and many other big box retailers would refuse to play nice with video cards. Any idiot knows, one of the more important pieces of hardware for gaming is your video card.
As everyone knows that has looked at hardware for more than 5 seconds there are basically 3 categories of video cards. Low end, Mid level, and High end. If you do even a bit of research you will find out that basically low end is garbage and good for playing minesweeper or something like that but not much else. Low end usually goes for 150$ or less, and in the case of intergrated graphic 0$. High end usually starts at about 300$ and goes upwards to over 1000$ if your an SLI crazy. This is bleeding edge technology, that most do not need for most gaming. The mid level goes from about 150$-300$ and is your bread and butter of video cards for games. It is also the best value and most bang for your buck. Many are just slightly different versions or underclocked copies of the high end cards, and sometimes have many of the same high end features enabled.
Now go to a retailer and try and buy a new computer. From my experiance in most instances, you usually have 3 choices: No video card, POS 30$ video card that is barely better than no video card, or a uber expensive 500$ video card. The only rational I can think of why Dell et al do this, is either the margins on mid level cards are so razor thin that they don't want to sell them, or they figure it is easier to really distinguish users as GAMER (with a capital fscking G!) or not a gamer. On top of that the option for the "Gaming" 500$ card will only be available on a 3000$ system full of every stupid bell and whistle and neon green bullshit they can stick in it. SO kids better start mowing lawns and paper routes, or find some rich parents to adopt you!
Anyway what I am saying is over the last 10 years big box computer retailers haven't exactly been kind to gaming. So many upon buying their POS Dell go out and buy the latest copy of whatever game and find that it is underpowered and have to immediately upgrade the video card. Or perhaps that is why they do it, for the upgrades. In any event, lets face it the gray masses don't build their machines, they buy them from Dell, or Futureshop or whatever, and the retail greed is likely having more an effect on what hardware gets distributed, which has likely the largest effect on what PC games people can or cannot run on their systems, or their level of frustration with PC gaming.
Anyway that's me rant. Build your own system and be done with it. Its easy. Everything is color coded these days, fits in one place, and everything is automated or has a wizard. Or hell, pay your Geeky buddy 50$ or a case of beer to build it for you. Most I know would love to have free toys to play with, even if they have to give them away when they are done!:)
Kind of useless if it is like one those elements that can only exist for a small fraction of a pico-second before it destabilizes and vaporizes, or becomes something else. Also not much use if they are talking about storage per volume, where volume has to be measured by an electron microscope, and the energy stored unable to do anything but be measured scientifically.
It also doesn't help that it has to be under something like 1,000,000 earth atmospheres. As that makes it inherently both dangerous, and difficult to work with.
Reminds me of the anime movie "Steamboy". If fact now that I think of it, it is kinda of exactly the same. I hope I don't spoil the plot when I say it doesn't end well.
I didn't read your whole post, but only like to add:
Cheating makes the assumption that the rules you are playing by are fair to begin with. When left with the options of "Cheating" or "Stop playing the game", I don't think it is unrealistic to think that many will try and cheat the system they may feel is unfair.
Those people that benefit from such as system and indeed make a living from it, may be inclined to believe and/or promote said system as being fair.
Call me crazy, but if the rules that people had to follow made any kind of sense, or were reasonable, the whole thing would be a non-issue. However the system is entrenched, and they DO NOT want change regardless of what anyone else might think or want, and it is entirely reasonable for them to be of this opinion.
When they finally brought the law into it I think it was inevitable that this would become a political issue. This is about what the industry wants to make money, versus a system many people believe has slanted a bit too far out of their favor and want a return to balance. AKA Lobbyists VS Citizens.
What exactly does that mean or how is it defined? I am not sure people are saying that his scientific method was entirely bad, but all the "extracurricular" activities had nothing to do with science or ethic for that matter.
Scientific misconduct as I know it is reserved for people making up data, or plagiarizing or taking credit for someone Else's work. The fact that there is disagreement is healthy and apart of how science progresses.
What is at issue, is that these idiots decided that other scientists dissent were not worthy and tried to quash any argument against them by refusing FOI requests, not releasing the data, trying to influence scientific journal entries, and discredit others with opposing opinions. Raw data was also "lost". However data routinely gets lost over the years, particularly old data, so nothing neccessarly malicious there. As for the other stuff, it really has nothing to do with the academic work, or how it was done, or any falseness there. It is however ethically pretty shitty.
It reminds me of Billy Madison... "Define Buisness Ethics..." "Argh!"
Its like having a whole bunch of people accuse someone of Theft, then the officials charge them with Murder, to which they are exonerated, thus clearing up the whole issue...
In other words pretty much a meaningless gesture likely used to try and blow over the issue at hand.
So no, I would say climategate isn't quite over just yet.
Considering with subscription your iPhone costs like 7-800$ and that you can buy a rubber "bumper" case on ebay from china for like 1$ or 2$ bucks, you would think they would be just throwing those things at customers!
Of course they probably would view this as conceding that a problem actually exists...
A)...and how many men are leaving? I would say many are getting out on both sides. I know when I started it seemed like the way to go and a good path. Now I am not so sure.
B)...10 years into their IT life, Women may commonly, you know have these things called children. Sometimes they have more than one. Sometimes they might decide that raising some kids might be a more fulfilling job than their current soul crushing IT job. Just sayin'... Commonly Men really don't have this option. I would say that more than makes up for any statistical variation if their was any.
Was on the 5th floor building looking out a corner window when it hit. Felt like nausea. Could see the whole building move. Very unsettling. Didn't last long, maybe 10-15 seconds, and probably took me 2 or 3 seconds to figure out what the heck was going on. Never felt a quake before!
No malicious intent? Yet he planned to take encrypted police communication and broadcast it via Twitter? What an idiot. Throw him in jail. That is not "testing" security.
Slashdot Mirror
End Decode.
Begin cry.
:p
Also since when do jobs go to the smartest most qualified people?
Srly. Why not just make mobile compatible websites already rather than apps that only one platform or another can use.
Common sense rly.
is to never throw anything away and hoard all my old computer components in my basement or under my desk.
"That's no laser!"
I forget where I saw it (possibly on slashdot) but I read an article that there is some evidence that suggests that Toxo makes Humans more "reckless", and that the percentage of people involved in motorcycle accidents that have Toxo is way above the norm.
Considering that it was likely played on lakes or ponds at some point, I would bet throwing a huge rock, may have led to it sinking, and possibly making the thrower wet and cold as well.
After some considerable research...
Apparently two people nameed Stanley actually won the Stanley Cup at some point. Who Knew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Stanley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Stanley
Also Canada sucks at Soccer.
I also think it is stupid now that when a team wins like 50 people get their name on the cup. It used to just be like 20-30. I am sorry the Trainer's Assistant Barber, didn't win the Stanley Cup!
First of all, whatever fox says the opposite is likely true.
Secondly I am not saying that I nor anyone else would be reviewing scientific paper for validity. You have to have a certain amount of trust in researchers (more or less for some people's comfort level). The same way as I trust that if I jump off a building I have a reasonable chance of falling down towards the earth, or that if I am driving a car, that my breaks will work.
No what I am saying is presenting "theroy", and explain it as best you can, citing evidence that has been confirmed/reproduced. Both sides. If a group of scientists don't believe is someone Else's theroy, then disprove it. Give evidence, confirmation, etc.... FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Simply saying A) I don't agree with this, throw it out, or B) He must obviously work for big oil, throw out his research or theroy. is BS and has no place in science. Also by NOT disproving it and just casually dismissing it, you are not advancing science one whit.
Perhaps I have only seen the bad parts of this whole debate, but somehow I doubt it.
Many people agree that some bearded Jesus guy did magic a long time ago and was the son of some magic bearded guy in the sky. No one has disproved it so far as I know. Its called faith, not science.
I think the real problem is Climatology itself in that it doesn't seem to want to act like "normal" sciences in that it is very hard to "prove" or "predict" anything. I don't think I have ever heard of a single model that has been able to predict anything. Hell the weather guy can't even get it right and he is only predicting a few days, not decades. The other problem is we are talking about data that spans of decades even hundreds of years, and if you want to look geologic, hundreds of thousands of years. We only have has science for a handful, and reliable data for less than that. The rest as I am sure you know has to be aggregate data, like tree rings, etc... which comes with its own set of variables and factors, etc... Predicting granular variability is going to be hard. So to say it is crazy that there are "skeptics" of these findings is a bit much. I think if people actually knew more, there would be even more skeptics.
Myself I am in the "I am not so sure, however given the consequence, better safer than sorry, and shouldn't we be doing this anyway if only for our environment..."
I saw a really good lecture on TV (TVO) last year about Climate Change 2% and its impact on world food production, with a focus on the political landscape. I couldn't agree more with the guy, in that the hardest part will be convincing the politicians, not the people.
I was being sarcastic.
However I am calling into question the methods in which we do science not so much "climate change" in of itself.
Science is a community and as such is given to things like mob rule and external pressure.
All you have to do is look at science in the past and how sometimes the MAJORITY gets it wrong for one reason or another and persecute those that got it right. Over a LONG period of time it always seems to work itself out through additional supportive scientific discovery.
However in the short term it seems to be very susceptible to a whole slew of unscientific factors and it usually takes many years and several breakthroughs to bong the scientists on the head a few times to make them see what is really going on. Science which should be as unbiased has entirely too many other factors muddying the waters.
It always has, and since I don't have a idea how it would change, likely in the foreseeable future always will. In the short term give me dissenting theories and present them in an unbiased fashion as possible and I can make my own decisions on what I believe that you very much. Dismissing someone's argument out of hand simply because you disagree bothers me.
I think it is a matter of perspective.
Some of the best science in the world came out of the last 50 years of communist Russia. I don't think anyone would argue that. Russia also make some of the worst ecological disasters in the world at the same time. I think it comes down to what the focus of science is rather than science itself. Focus is likely pretty political or policy driven. Using science to enable the faster extraction of oil, isn't always the same as using science to enable the safer extraction of oil for example. It is driven by what is desired, where the money is, and largely government sponsorship and what their direction is. Science is science, its all progress. Some people when they hear progress they think of evil bad things, when in reality progress is simply moving forward. Perhaps you might not agree with what stick is being advanced, but obviously someone does.
Heh. Agreed.
The thing is population growth will have about 10x more effect on the earth than any climate change should it exist.
No one wants to talk about unrestrained population growth. No one wants to talk about trying to control population growth. Look at where it is talking place, Africa and Asia. Are we going to tell them to stop making babies? Are we going to tell Christians (I have no idea about the ideas of other faiths, but likely about the same) that they should be using contraception and abortion?
Anyway everyone makes a big freaking deal about climate change, when in reality the REAL problem is exponential population growth, and people have been accurately projecting that chart for the last 50 years. No one does or even talks about it.
I wonder why that is.
Ya they also said "the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035", which the Dutch agency partly traced to a report on the likely shrinking of glaciers by the year 2350.
That seems like a glaring error.
FACT!: All the Himalayan glaciers WILL be GONE in 25 years OMG!!! CLIMATE CHANGE! YArhggggg!
Ooops: Small addendum... ya... just a tiny thing... rather than all the Himalayan glaciers actually being melted in 25 years, they may likely be shrinking in 340 years. Our bad. This changes nothing however, Climate Change is still real!
Sorry that's a big deal. Not a small inconsequential error. I am not saying that climate change doesn't exist or isn't a concern, I am saying that many of these scientists need to get their acts together, and perhaps re-evaluate their motives and bias.
I will say that mistakes are part of science, and I think it is a very good sign that they themselves brought it forward for scrutiny. That is a very healthy thing. I am not a climatologist so perhaps I just don't get it, however two of those statements of the three actually do seem like a big deal to me in reality and trying to down play it to save face or not try to hurt the climate change "movement" makes me uncomfortable. It could be that they are saying that taken in context with all the other climate change evidence that these things are singular and inconsequential, however I don't think they should be making that assessment of other Scientists work (which likely also does contain a certain amount of mistakes) to justify their own. Its that sort of mindset that makes me terribly critical of the whole affair.
Actually most big box stores have been.
I know one of the things that drove me to build my own systems, was that Dell and many other big box retailers would refuse to play nice with video cards. Any idiot knows, one of the more important pieces of hardware for gaming is your video card.
As everyone knows that has looked at hardware for more than 5 seconds there are basically 3 categories of video cards. Low end, Mid level, and High end. If you do even a bit of research you will find out that basically low end is garbage and good for playing minesweeper or something like that but not much else. Low end usually goes for 150$ or less, and in the case of intergrated graphic 0$. High end usually starts at about 300$ and goes upwards to over 1000$ if your an SLI crazy. This is bleeding edge technology, that most do not need for most gaming. The mid level goes from about 150$-300$ and is your bread and butter of video cards for games. It is also the best value and most bang for your buck. Many are just slightly different versions or underclocked copies of the high end cards, and sometimes have many of the same high end features enabled.
Now go to a retailer and try and buy a new computer. From my experiance in most instances, you usually have 3 choices: No video card, POS 30$ video card that is barely better than no video card, or a uber expensive 500$ video card. The only rational I can think of why Dell et al do this, is either the margins on mid level cards are so razor thin that they don't want to sell them, or they figure it is easier to really distinguish users as GAMER (with a capital fscking G!) or not a gamer. On top of that the option for the "Gaming" 500$ card will only be available on a 3000$ system full of every stupid bell and whistle and neon green bullshit they can stick in it. SO kids better start mowing lawns and paper routes, or find some rich parents to adopt you!
Anyway what I am saying is over the last 10 years big box computer retailers haven't exactly been kind to gaming. So many upon buying their POS Dell go out and buy the latest copy of whatever game and find that it is underpowered and have to immediately upgrade the video card. Or perhaps that is why they do it, for the upgrades. In any event, lets face it the gray masses don't build their machines, they buy them from Dell, or Futureshop or whatever, and the retail greed is likely having more an effect on what hardware gets distributed, which has likely the largest effect on what PC games people can or cannot run on their systems, or their level of frustration with PC gaming.
Anyway that's me rant. Build your own system and be done with it. Its easy. Everything is color coded these days, fits in one place, and everything is automated or has a wizard. Or hell, pay your Geeky buddy 50$ or a case of beer to build it for you. Most I know would love to have free toys to play with, even if they have to give them away when they are done! :)
Nothing there about how stable or how it scales.
Kind of useless if it is like one those elements that can only exist for a small fraction of a pico-second before it destabilizes and vaporizes, or becomes something else. Also not much use if they are talking about storage per volume, where volume has to be measured by an electron microscope, and the energy stored unable to do anything but be measured scientifically.
It also doesn't help that it has to be under something like 1,000,000 earth atmospheres. As that makes it inherently both dangerous, and difficult to work with.
Reminds me of the anime movie "Steamboy". If fact now that I think of it, it is kinda of exactly the same. I hope I don't spoil the plot when I say it doesn't end well.
I didn't read your whole post, but only like to add:
Cheating makes the assumption that the rules you are playing by are fair to begin with. When left with the options of "Cheating" or "Stop playing the game", I don't think it is unrealistic to think that many will try and cheat the system they may feel is unfair.
Those people that benefit from such as system and indeed make a living from it, may be inclined to believe and/or promote said system as being fair.
Call me crazy, but if the rules that people had to follow made any kind of sense, or were reasonable, the whole thing would be a non-issue. However the system is entrenched, and they DO NOT want change regardless of what anyone else might think or want, and it is entirely reasonable for them to be of this opinion.
When they finally brought the law into it I think it was inevitable that this would become a political issue. This is about what the industry wants to make money, versus a system many people believe has slanted a bit too far out of their favor and want a return to balance. AKA Lobbyists VS Citizens.
What exactly does that mean or how is it defined? I am not sure people are saying that his scientific method was entirely bad, but all the "extracurricular" activities had nothing to do with science or ethic for that matter.
Scientific misconduct as I know it is reserved for people making up data, or plagiarizing or taking credit for someone Else's work. The fact that there is disagreement is healthy and apart of how science progresses.
What is at issue, is that these idiots decided that other scientists dissent were not worthy and tried to quash any argument against them by refusing FOI requests, not releasing the data, trying to influence scientific journal entries, and discredit others with opposing opinions. Raw data was also "lost". However data routinely gets lost over the years, particularly old data, so nothing neccessarly malicious there. As for the other stuff, it really has nothing to do with the academic work, or how it was done, or any falseness there. It is however ethically pretty shitty.
It reminds me of Billy Madison... "Define Buisness Ethics..." "Argh!"
Its like having a whole bunch of people accuse someone of Theft, then the officials charge them with Murder, to which they are exonerated, thus clearing up the whole issue...
In other words pretty much a meaningless gesture likely used to try and blow over the issue at hand.
So no, I would say climategate isn't quite over just yet.
Considering with subscription your iPhone costs like 7-800$ and that you can buy a rubber "bumper" case on ebay from china for like 1$ or 2$ bucks, you would think they would be just throwing those things at customers!
Of course they probably would view this as conceding that a problem actually exists...
I would be the "app store" will be more like Steam than Apple's store, and just contain MS product.
Nothing too exciting about that. Just adding easier online distribution for Office and Windows and junk. Not that big a deal as I see it.
Shhhhh.... Your giving rednecks around the world hope that someday John Deere will make a sports car...
A) ...and how many men are leaving? I would say many are getting out on both sides. I know when I started it seemed like the way to go and a good path. Now I am not so sure.
B) ...10 years into their IT life, Women may commonly, you know have these things called children. Sometimes they have more than one. Sometimes they might decide that raising some kids might be a more fulfilling job than their current soul crushing IT job. Just sayin'... Commonly Men really don't have this option. I would say that more than makes up for any statistical variation if their was any.
Was on the 5th floor building looking out a corner window when it hit. Felt like nausea. Could see the whole building move. Very unsettling. Didn't last long, maybe 10-15 seconds, and probably took me 2 or 3 seconds to figure out what the heck was going on. Never felt a quake before!
Christ, what an Asshole!
No malicious intent? Yet he planned to take encrypted police communication and broadcast it via Twitter? What an idiot. Throw him in jail. That is not "testing" security.
Will the readers or format survive 100 years? Answer: No.
Pardon me while I head down to Future Shop to pick up my new mechanical phonograph to read my phonograph cylinders I have hanging around the house...
I was thinking the same thing. No WAY am I clicking on that link at work!