Its not so much "black and white", its just stupid people acting stupid saying stupid things.
I love how American's have such a constructed view of who or what the are and what makes them this way. The amount of fictional works of literature that support this is astounding. However if some people took 5 seconds to look around at what is reality, or 10 seconds to actually look into how thing actually operate in the real world, they might be able to remove themselves from this fantasy that has been constructed over the years, that so many seem to adhere to and actually cherish as the American way. They may perhaps be the ideals, however it doesn't reflect reality in the slightest, and typically is a super over simplification of real world processes.
I can't read one more book about a rugged, individualist industrialist, who is for open markets and no regulation, who is fighting against the government and the freedom they are trying to suppress, while at the same time making billions, and sleeping with beautiful women, while toting guns, and getting into fist fights with commies.
Aryn Rand wants here pound of flesh America!
Ben Bova also wants a cut.
Heinlein also called and will arm wrestle you for his IP fee.
Anyway that just off the top of my head I am sure there are more. It might make for good fiction (even if the same principles are expounded over, and over, and over again), but it doesn't have a shred of reality in it.
Except maybe Richard Branson (even his name is right for it!), but he, is , er, British....whoops!
Who is the closest in the US? Donald Trump? Your Fired!
In many instances, simply understanding statistics is not enough, and you have to have a good understanding of the process you are trying to describe. Otherwise you will end up making some absurd conclusions based on pretty much nothing. In this instance having the RAW data can be dangerous as they don't understand it.
A good example of this is Quarries. Quarries are universally pretty much not liked despite being important for civilization as we know it. Some people were angry and had the predetermined opinion than operators were not doing enough to rehabilitate the areas they disturb. They got a hold of the RAW data, which CLEARLY showed about a 2:1 ratio of disturbed VS rehabilitation. They came to the conclusion that the area was being disturbed at twice the rate of rehab, so that things are continually getting worse, and thus pressured for change. However, things are not that simple. The data, was based on a slice in time of 10 years. The data also had a lot of problems with accuracy and a lack of validation. Even if you ignored the problems, and for arguments sake it was perfect, it would still be the wrong conclusion. While the numbers and the statistics were fine, the method was wrong. What they failed to consider is that, a large portion of any quarry has to be disturbed and left that way for the normal operation of the quarry. To do things, like move trucks around, have room for machines that do the work, etc... normal stuff. However at any point in a Quarries history this will be occurring, it is part of the business. During normal operation a certain amount can always be rehabbed, but that area being used will be roughly the same, and will not be rehabbed until the life of the quarry is over. Here is the kicker: As a general rule a quarry lasts somewhere between 30-150 years. So your 10 year slice of data is not enough to cover the average life cycle of a typical quarry. Also because you have much more data, than the 10 years allows for, that is any quarry older than 10 years old will have only disturbed area and the fact that you are adding new quarries (along with their area that doesn't go away until the end). So because of this the number of quarries added to your data will be much larger than those that may have been retired and totally rehabilitated within that short 10 year slice of time. I am not saying they are doing enough rehabilitation, only that the data is insufficient to make a determination of any accuracy. Because of the scale involved this makes it very difficult to determine. There are ways to do it, various methods, sampling, likely in depth studies of actual details and real life specifics. Simply taking a spreadsheet of numbers and running some simple statistics on it however is not enough.
So there is an example of someone understanding statistics, but not so much the data. I am also saying that you don't have to be an expert to understand the data, only that if you want to make conclusions using statistics based on some particular data, you better understand the data you are dealing with.
1) Money in the form of grants from all intents and purposes you the King of the World.
and
2) The way in which you get Grants, being the publishing of your academic findings in journals.
What happens if the King, or those Journals don't give out grant money to people with a opinion different than the one they want to prove.
I will tell you what, few experts get funding, and you get a million studies that all say the same thing (with the end result being pretty meaningless).
Its not rocket surgery.
I am not saying that is happening, or that it is widespread, however I find the prospect scary. Particularly when you hear about people trying to influence what gets published, and going so far to buy out the Journals to prevent it from happening. I believe in cards that is what you call "stacking the deck".
You can also add to your list of "denialist" categories:
I agree that something is going on, and man may be the cause of it, and everything you say might be true, and the consequences to be dire enough that we should probably start doing something about it now, however I do not believe you have proven ANYTHING definitely, nor have you inspired my confidence (which is what it is all about really) in your scientific method, your professionalism, or your arguments.
When scientists are prepared to try and actively disprove their own theories to try and reveal the truth, then I will hop on to the band wagon gladly. The opposite seems to be the rule however. The fact that they are trying to prove "denalists" "wrong" rather than to try and see if they are true simply tells me they have preconceived notion of what is right and wrong. The fact that there is a word at all for "denalists" tells me this is going the wrong way.
I know given the nature of the problem, getting an totally definitive answer will be very difficult, but ultimately not necessary. It just has to be definitive enough to form a consensus. Perhaps I am too harsh, but they seem to want a consensus before they have definitively proved their hypothesis. For me science is about repeatable results. As much fun as simulations and models are, until they can accurately predict the past, they are all but so much fiction. I don't envy the amount of work required due the sheer scale of time, physical area, and number of variables, but I don't think that is an excuse. If you are not up to the task, then don't call it science, call it Artistic Modeling or something, just don't hang this under the Scientific tree for creditability. You have to earn that.
Of course one of the things that come out of all those released emails on the topic from apparent "scientists" were people actively trying to block publications or submissions from anyone that didn't agree with their findings. It has been also pointed out since this whole thing got rolling, many "scientific" peer review journals have become more concerned with advocacy and politics than actual science.
I am not saying that we should not pay attention to these mediums, however I would disagree strongly that one should disregard any other source simply because it isn't approved. That reeks badly of fanaticism and religious fervor. I will say it again, people and scientists need to stop being lazy and whiny. It makes me so angry when I hear this sort of bunk. They are basically saying, I don't want to have to bother refuting these crackpots (notice the actual word he used in the article: "humbug" denoting how seriously he is taking this), people should just believe me because I am right. That is BS, and against scientific method. Also there is nothing to say they have to disprove anything, they only have to PROVE what they are saying, and people will make up their own mind what they feel is correct. At some point consensus will be determined (which it already has to a certain degree), and that will be the facts until proven otherwise.
I personally do not disagree than some action should be taken, however unprofessional attitudes, and a continued troubling activities of supposed scientists wearing more than one hat, to myself discredits not their findings so much as their intentions. I really hope all of this is not a construct of some underlying pattern of the global scientific community as a whole and how they undertake science professionally.
Anyway I have no problem with people arguing passionately their position (even if it should be unbiased and dissociative), however the time old argument of "I am right, and you are wrong because you are stupid" doesn't hold too much water for me, nor does it really make me want to believe anything you say. You want me to take things on faith, and only read ascribed books, as interpreted by specialists.
You sir just described religion, a bible, and priests. Have fun with that fun club. They seem to be doing so much good for the world these days.
Yeah I saw it mentioned that it was taken out of context, but frankly I can't think of how you say that and make it right in any context. Perhaps he was just being cavalier, but it sure comes off as insensitive and arrogant.
Obviously they will be subject to whatever laws apply in the whatever land they exist. Also obviously if your are aware of what information they release and when you can make reasoned decisions about what you use said service for.
However the difference to me is what their privacy policies are for the voluntary release of information. If the Police get a Warrant, that's one thing, if some 3rd party just asks nicely (or pressures) that's something else entirely. I have no illusions that the information is available, its the policies they have in place to control that access to only those that have a RIGHT to access it.
The fact that the CEO of the entire company has a cavalier or joking opinion of the issue, like it isn't a big deal, tends to lose my confidence before I even review their privacy policy.
I would say if anything that would be a positive thing not a negative.
Considering how difficult it would be for the average manager to even KNOW about let alone FIND that information on the internet, well it really is a moot point.
If the manager DOES know about this sort of stuff, and actually reads textfiles (as I recall this was back in the era of BBS's and "computer enthusiasts"), I think he would likely be more impressed you are actually mentioned in them, and think you might be someone special.
That said, you never did say what it was you did, and perhaps that matters. If you dabbled in some phone phreaking or cracking, big deal. The thing back in the day was to see if you could gain access to something just to see if you could, everything was new. Its not like now, where it's to steal money and extort people, steal identities, or other nefarious actions.
Of course if what you regret is getting caught by campus security attempting to make sweet love to the university computer system, then the potential employer may think you odd and take a pass.:)
"Just as a data point, Mrs Thatcher (UK Prime Minister 1979 to 1990) was a chemist and apparently was brought up a strict Methodist. Where does that appear in your world map?"
Then I would argue it is bad data. You don't actually use bad data. You find new data if you can.
Just because bad data is the best data you have available doesn't mean that you should use it.
I have plenty of examples where I work, where the raw data has been, shall we say "misplaced" from years ago.
I don't use it. If someone wants it, I will give it out, but I put a disclaimer on it cautioning its use. Someone can certainly FOI it, and use it however they like. However if I was doing a serious study, I would never use the stuff, even if it proves my pet theory.
Also the older the data the less metadata that is available, usually various methods of data collection were used, most of them not the same as today and will influence the results. Without an understanding of all these variables, you can come to monstrous conclusions that are really horribly incorrect.
I believe this is one of the things they were trying to correct for in the tree ring stuff I keep hearing about.
Anyway all I am saying, is if you don't have the data available to prove your point, just any old data won't do I am sorry.
To me it certainly sounds like: "Hey we got this data, but it doesn't really prove anything, but hey we have this old data that is shite, but totally proves our point. Bonus!". That's Sciencetacular!
A simple book I read in university. It was pretty straight forward. Anyone who calls themselves a "Scientist" should ascribe to it. Those that don't should be called something else.
"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."
Crazy stuff eh?
LOL I can't find the exact book I read in university (it was a rather old one in the library), but I did find this one. Someone should seriously buy those jerks this for a Christmas gift:
I am not convinced that humans are causing climate change. I personally think they do not have enough evidence either way to support anything.
I think what they have done is presented a plausible/possible cause for a human cause. I am not saying it is, but I am saying it is in the realm of possibility.
What bothers me, is many strut around waving the climate change flag like it was fact and anyone that disagrees with them must be an idiot or some kind of child eating demon.
Considering the potential implications I think it is worth our while to try and do something about it, and regardless I think as you said we should stop wasting and polluting anyway, that part is just common sense.
Also I think the idea of geoengineering is ludicrous. We don't understand enough about this sort of stuff to go tampering in large scale projects, and the repercussions could be tremendous.
meaningless I don't think is a strong enough word. Stupid comes to mind.
Other examples might be me consuming information by say looking at a tree for 10min. That's like better than 1080p man!
Perhaps doing anything in life I am gathering "information", though like my senses, like touching or hearing things... not to mention my extra sensory perceptions!
Also to add an additional level of stupidity/complexity are those 34GB compressed or not? If so all those memories in photo or video format could be totally reduced (and to be honest they likely are).
Anyway I have already spent 10 minutes too many writing about this ridiculous topic.
However I would bet 100 bucks that I could go outside right now and ask 100 people if they have ever heard about a country called "Eritrea" and I think I would be 100 bucks richer.
Basically your right, I guess it is a bit arrogant. But I stand by the "I have never heard of this place before so I doubt many people have" (OH MAI!). Perhaps that is false. Perhaps in some parts of the world it is very false. I bet if there is some people on Slashdot from Eritrea, then they probably hear about it all the time, because they live there. Or Perhaps I am a professor in African studies or Geopolitical Issues, etc... My guess is most normal people haven't heard of this place before. You can disagree if you like, and consequently I would think you are wrong.
All that aside, the whole point of the argument isn't just that I haven't heard of it before, but it is being used next to countries like China, Cuba, Iran. I bet if I ask 100 people RIGHT NOW outside every single one of them will know all of those places.
Anyway I don't think I was being overly arrogant nor is it a weak argument (nor was it really an argument, but a joke). The only way that it is arrogant, is in the context that every writer is arrogant to think their words are of interest to anyone else but themselves. The act of writing is sheer arrogance. The fact that I didn't take a small poll before hand to determine my opinion that I have never heard of this place (and therefor come to the conclusion that few have) is immaterial.
Seeing as there was already an article today of a Japanese women changing her fingerprints and the fact that it has been proven that you can fool facial recognition simply by putting a picture in front of the camera, both of these biometrics are spoofed pretty easily.
If on the other hand you have a finger print DB and require photo identification like most countries, I don't see this as a big deal. How is this any different than what the US or Canada or any number of countries have been doing for decades. I remember getting finger printed when I was in elementary school, I am sure that is on file now, and I get my photo done on a driver's licence every 5 years.
Sure one is mandatory where the other are voluntary (I am pretty sure the finger printing was done my a RCMP program that was voluntary to protect the children from being kidnapt or running away and getting lost or some such thing).
However it is hardly voluntary if I was 5 year old, and many would consider having a drivers licence a required part of living or at least having a job, though you might get by in an urban city.
Yes. Because I didn't ACTUALLY do that, as that was clearly not a joke, but I seriously think they are doing such a good job arresting reporters that it is difficult to know anything about said country because there is no one to report anything about it.
I have heard all about Darfur and how it is being ignored, and continues to be. That this one of many tiny African countries involved I was not aware.
Also I know it is getting gray and murky, but weren't the rebels the "good" guys, and the government was the one accused of sponsoring militias that have been going around slaughtering everyone?
Yes I think you are right, because I don't know this obscure tiny African country that may or may not be involved in supporting rebels, in a conflict that is half way around the world, which by your very admission isn't getting great media coverage, I clearly don't pay any attention to the world at all. I think that is obvious to anyone who can think critically. Furthermore I would go on to say that since I don't pay any attention to the world, I also don't care about anyone but myself, which makes a horrible horrible person, that should be reviled and shunned by others. Probably spit on also. SO if you see me, feel free to spit on me, as I clearly deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Or on land next to the Ocean, that is actually below it.
Its not so much "black and white", its just stupid people acting stupid saying stupid things.
I love how American's have such a constructed view of who or what the are and what makes them this way. The amount of fictional works of literature that support this is astounding. However if some people took 5 seconds to look around at what is reality, or 10 seconds to actually look into how thing actually operate in the real world, they might be able to remove themselves from this fantasy that has been constructed over the years, that so many seem to adhere to and actually cherish as the American way. They may perhaps be the ideals, however it doesn't reflect reality in the slightest, and typically is a super over simplification of real world processes.
I can't read one more book about a rugged, individualist industrialist, who is for open markets and no regulation, who is fighting against the government and the freedom they are trying to suppress, while at the same time making billions, and sleeping with beautiful women, while toting guns, and getting into fist fights with commies.
Aryn Rand wants here pound of flesh America!
Ben Bova also wants a cut.
Heinlein also called and will arm wrestle you for his IP fee.
Anyway that just off the top of my head I am sure there are more. It might make for good fiction (even if the same principles are expounded over, and over, and over again), but it doesn't have a shred of reality in it.
Except maybe Richard Branson (even his name is right for it!), but he, is , er, British....whoops!
Who is the closest in the US? Donald Trump? Your Fired!
"Or: The reason ticket sales are down 12% since 2002? Higher ticket prices."
Agreed, when I have to get a short term loan to go see "Old Dogs" something is seriously wrong.
I don't even want to think what it costs a family of 4 or 5 to go... maybe that is the REAL reason for the mortgage crisis!
LOL!
They must be on strike again...
I agree to a point, or at least with a cravat.
In many instances, simply understanding statistics is not enough, and you have to have a good understanding of the process you are trying to describe. Otherwise you will end up making some absurd conclusions based on pretty much nothing. In this instance having the RAW data can be dangerous as they don't understand it.
A good example of this is Quarries. Quarries are universally pretty much not liked despite being important for civilization as we know it. Some people were angry and had the predetermined opinion than operators were not doing enough to rehabilitate the areas they disturb. They got a hold of the RAW data, which CLEARLY showed about a 2:1 ratio of disturbed VS rehabilitation. They came to the conclusion that the area was being disturbed at twice the rate of rehab, so that things are continually getting worse, and thus pressured for change. However, things are not that simple. The data, was based on a slice in time of 10 years. The data also had a lot of problems with accuracy and a lack of validation. Even if you ignored the problems, and for arguments sake it was perfect, it would still be the wrong conclusion. While the numbers and the statistics were fine, the method was wrong. What they failed to consider is that, a large portion of any quarry has to be disturbed and left that way for the normal operation of the quarry. To do things, like move trucks around, have room for machines that do the work, etc... normal stuff. However at any point in a Quarries history this will be occurring, it is part of the business. During normal operation a certain amount can always be rehabbed, but that area being used will be roughly the same, and will not be rehabbed until the life of the quarry is over. Here is the kicker: As a general rule a quarry lasts somewhere between 30-150 years. So your 10 year slice of data is not enough to cover the average life cycle of a typical quarry. Also because you have much more data, than the 10 years allows for, that is any quarry older than 10 years old will have only disturbed area and the fact that you are adding new quarries (along with their area that doesn't go away until the end). So because of this the number of quarries added to your data will be much larger than those that may have been retired and totally rehabilitated within that short 10 year slice of time. I am not saying they are doing enough rehabilitation, only that the data is insufficient to make a determination of any accuracy. Because of the scale involved this makes it very difficult to determine. There are ways to do it, various methods, sampling, likely in depth studies of actual details and real life specifics. Simply taking a spreadsheet of numbers and running some simple statistics on it however is not enough.
So there is an example of someone understanding statistics, but not so much the data. I am also saying that you don't have to be an expert to understand the data, only that if you want to make conclusions using statistics based on some particular data, you better understand the data you are dealing with.
I don't think that is being disputed.
The problem is what influences experts.
1) Money in the form of grants from all intents and purposes you the King of the World.
and
2) The way in which you get Grants, being the publishing of your academic findings in journals.
What happens if the King, or those Journals don't give out grant money to people with a opinion different than the one they want to prove.
I will tell you what, few experts get funding, and you get a million studies that all say the same thing (with the end result being pretty meaningless).
Its not rocket surgery.
I am not saying that is happening, or that it is widespread, however I find the prospect scary. Particularly when you hear about people trying to influence what gets published, and going so far to buy out the Journals to prevent it from happening. I believe in cards that is what you call "stacking the deck".
I agree 100%.
You can also add to your list of "denialist" categories:
I agree that something is going on, and man may be the cause of it, and everything you say might be true, and the consequences to be dire enough that we should probably start doing something about it now, however I do not believe you have proven ANYTHING definitely, nor have you inspired my confidence (which is what it is all about really) in your scientific method, your professionalism, or your arguments.
When scientists are prepared to try and actively disprove their own theories to try and reveal the truth, then I will hop on to the band wagon gladly. The opposite seems to be the rule however. The fact that they are trying to prove "denalists" "wrong" rather than to try and see if they are true simply tells me they have preconceived notion of what is right and wrong. The fact that there is a word at all for "denalists" tells me this is going the wrong way.
I know given the nature of the problem, getting an totally definitive answer will be very difficult, but ultimately not necessary. It just has to be definitive enough to form a consensus. Perhaps I am too harsh, but they seem to want a consensus before they have definitively proved their hypothesis. For me science is about repeatable results. As much fun as simulations and models are, until they can accurately predict the past, they are all but so much fiction. I don't envy the amount of work required due the sheer scale of time, physical area, and number of variables, but I don't think that is an excuse. If you are not up to the task, then don't call it science, call it Artistic Modeling or something, just don't hang this under the Scientific tree for creditability. You have to earn that.
Of course one of the things that come out of all those released emails on the topic from apparent "scientists" were people actively trying to block publications or submissions from anyone that didn't agree with their findings. It has been also pointed out since this whole thing got rolling, many "scientific" peer review journals have become more concerned with advocacy and politics than actual science.
I am not saying that we should not pay attention to these mediums, however I would disagree strongly that one should disregard any other source simply because it isn't approved. That reeks badly of fanaticism and religious fervor. I will say it again, people and scientists need to stop being lazy and whiny. It makes me so angry when I hear this sort of bunk. They are basically saying, I don't want to have to bother refuting these crackpots (notice the actual word he used in the article: "humbug" denoting how seriously he is taking this), people should just believe me because I am right. That is BS, and against scientific method. Also there is nothing to say they have to disprove anything, they only have to PROVE what they are saying, and people will make up their own mind what they feel is correct. At some point consensus will be determined (which it already has to a certain degree), and that will be the facts until proven otherwise.
I personally do not disagree than some action should be taken, however unprofessional attitudes, and a continued troubling activities of supposed scientists wearing more than one hat, to myself discredits not their findings so much as their intentions. I really hope all of this is not a construct of some underlying pattern of the global scientific community as a whole and how they undertake science professionally.
Anyway I have no problem with people arguing passionately their position (even if it should be unbiased and dissociative), however the time old argument of "I am right, and you are wrong because you are stupid" doesn't hold too much water for me, nor does it really make me want to believe anything you say. You want me to take things on faith, and only read ascribed books, as interpreted by specialists.
You sir just described religion, a bible, and priests. Have fun with that fun club. They seem to be doing so much good for the world these days.
Yeah I saw it mentioned that it was taken out of context, but frankly I can't think of how you say that and make it right in any context. Perhaps he was just being cavalier, but it sure comes off as insensitive and arrogant.
Obviously they will be subject to whatever laws apply in the whatever land they exist. Also obviously if your are aware of what information they release and when you can make reasoned decisions about what you use said service for.
However the difference to me is what their privacy policies are for the voluntary release of information. If the Police get a Warrant, that's one thing, if some 3rd party just asks nicely (or pressures) that's something else entirely. I have no illusions that the information is available, its the policies they have in place to control that access to only those that have a RIGHT to access it.
The fact that the CEO of the entire company has a cavalier or joking opinion of the issue, like it isn't a big deal, tends to lose my confidence before I even review their privacy policy.
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
One of the stupidest arguments that is made all the time.
"Hey if you got nuthin' to hide you won't mind if we violate your rights!"
I would love to see a privacy war, competition at its finest...
Bing might just get a new user today.
Cold War ends, Global Warming Starts?
Don't worry, its just the Russians in the fight to stop Global Warm...erm Climate Change.
if people were firing land based subs.
I would say if anything that would be a positive thing not a negative.
Considering how difficult it would be for the average manager to even KNOW about let alone FIND that information on the internet, well it really is a moot point.
If the manager DOES know about this sort of stuff, and actually reads textfiles (as I recall this was back in the era of BBS's and "computer enthusiasts"), I think he would likely be more impressed you are actually mentioned in them, and think you might be someone special.
That said, you never did say what it was you did, and perhaps that matters. If you dabbled in some phone phreaking or cracking, big deal. The thing back in the day was to see if you could gain access to something just to see if you could, everything was new. Its not like now, where it's to steal money and extort people, steal identities, or other nefarious actions.
Of course if what you regret is getting caught by campus security attempting to make sweet love to the university computer system, then the potential employer may think you odd and take a pass. :)
"Just as a data point, Mrs Thatcher (UK Prime Minister 1979 to 1990) was a chemist and apparently was brought up a strict Methodist. Where does that appear in your world map?"
Sexy.
Then I would argue it is bad data. You don't actually use bad data. You find new data if you can.
Just because bad data is the best data you have available doesn't mean that you should use it.
I have plenty of examples where I work, where the raw data has been, shall we say "misplaced" from years ago.
I don't use it. If someone wants it, I will give it out, but I put a disclaimer on it cautioning its use. Someone can certainly FOI it, and use it however they like. However if I was doing a serious study, I would never use the stuff, even if it proves my pet theory.
Also the older the data the less metadata that is available, usually various methods of data collection were used, most of them not the same as today and will influence the results. Without an understanding of all these variables, you can come to monstrous conclusions that are really horribly incorrect.
I believe this is one of the things they were trying to correct for in the tree ring stuff I keep hearing about.
Anyway all I am saying, is if you don't have the data available to prove your point, just any old data won't do I am sorry.
To me it certainly sounds like: "Hey we got this data, but it doesn't really prove anything, but hey we have this old data that is shite, but totally proves our point. Bonus!". That's Sciencetacular!
LOL
No citations and posted as Anonymous Coward... Nice!
I believe this is what this discussion is all about.
"You want facts! I'll give you some friggin' facts you idiot! Take that! Eat those facts! You are SO wrong you jerk! CLIMATE CHANNGE ARGH!!!!"
"Care to actually *prove* anything you just said?"
"..."
A simple book I read in university. It was pretty straight forward. Anyone who calls themselves a "Scientist" should ascribe to it. Those that don't should be called something else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
QUOTE:
"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."
Crazy stuff eh?
LOL I can't find the exact book I read in university (it was a rather old one in the library), but I did find this one. Someone should seriously buy those jerks this for a Christmas gift:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-Like-Scientist-Scientific/dp/0690045654/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260478099&sr=1-3
I will go one more.
I am not convinced that humans are causing climate change. I personally think they do not have enough evidence either way to support anything.
I think what they have done is presented a plausible/possible cause for a human cause. I am not saying it is, but I am saying it is in the realm of possibility.
What bothers me, is many strut around waving the climate change flag like it was fact and anyone that disagrees with them must be an idiot or some kind of child eating demon.
Considering the potential implications I think it is worth our while to try and do something about it, and regardless I think as you said we should stop wasting and polluting anyway, that part is just common sense.
Also I think the idea of geoengineering is ludicrous. We don't understand enough about this sort of stuff to go tampering in large scale projects, and the repercussions could be tremendous.
00 HOSTILE!
01 KILL!
02 GOTO 00
...SHOCKING!
meaningless I don't think is a strong enough word. Stupid comes to mind.
Other examples might be me consuming information by say looking at a tree for 10min. That's like better than 1080p man!
Perhaps doing anything in life I am gathering "information", though like my senses, like touching or hearing things... not to mention my extra sensory perceptions!
Also to add an additional level of stupidity/complexity are those 34GB compressed or not? If so all those memories in photo or video format could be totally reduced (and to be honest they likely are).
Anyway I have already spent 10 minutes too many writing about this ridiculous topic.
OK maybe I am an idiot.
However I would bet 100 bucks that I could go outside right now and ask 100 people if they have ever heard about a country called "Eritrea" and I think I would be 100 bucks richer.
Basically your right, I guess it is a bit arrogant. But I stand by the "I have never heard of this place before so I doubt many people have" (OH MAI!). Perhaps that is false. Perhaps in some parts of the world it is very false. I bet if there is some people on Slashdot from Eritrea, then they probably hear about it all the time, because they live there. Or Perhaps I am a professor in African studies or Geopolitical Issues, etc... My guess is most normal people haven't heard of this place before. You can disagree if you like, and consequently I would think you are wrong.
All that aside, the whole point of the argument isn't just that I haven't heard of it before, but it is being used next to countries like China, Cuba, Iran. I bet if I ask 100 people RIGHT NOW outside every single one of them will know all of those places.
Anyway I don't think I was being overly arrogant nor is it a weak argument (nor was it really an argument, but a joke). The only way that it is arrogant, is in the context that every writer is arrogant to think their words are of interest to anyone else but themselves. The act of writing is sheer arrogance. The fact that I didn't take a small poll before hand to determine my opinion that I have never heard of this place (and therefor come to the conclusion that few have) is immaterial.
Seeing as there was already an article today of a Japanese women changing her fingerprints and the fact that it has been proven that you can fool facial recognition simply by putting a picture in front of the camera, both of these biometrics are spoofed pretty easily.
If on the other hand you have a finger print DB and require photo identification like most countries, I don't see this as a big deal. How is this any different than what the US or Canada or any number of countries have been doing for decades. I remember getting finger printed when I was in elementary school, I am sure that is on file now, and I get my photo done on a driver's licence every 5 years.
Sure one is mandatory where the other are voluntary (I am pretty sure the finger printing was done my a RCMP program that was voluntary to protect the children from being kidnapt or running away and getting lost or some such thing).
However it is hardly voluntary if I was 5 year old, and many would consider having a drivers licence a required part of living or at least having a job, though you might get by in an urban city.
Yes. Because I didn't ACTUALLY do that, as that was clearly not a joke, but I seriously think they are doing such a good job arresting reporters that it is difficult to know anything about said country because there is no one to report anything about it.
idiot.
I have heard all about Darfur and how it is being ignored, and continues to be. That this one of many tiny African countries involved I was not aware.
Also I know it is getting gray and murky, but weren't the rebels the "good" guys, and the government was the one accused of sponsoring militias that have been going around slaughtering everyone?
Yes I think you are right, because I don't know this obscure tiny African country that may or may not be involved in supporting rebels, in a conflict that is half way around the world, which by your very admission isn't getting great media coverage, I clearly don't pay any attention to the world at all. I think that is obvious to anyone who can think critically. Furthermore I would go on to say that since I don't pay any attention to the world, I also don't care about anyone but myself, which makes a horrible horrible person, that should be reviled and shunned by others. Probably spit on also. SO if you see me, feel free to spit on me, as I clearly deserve it.