I understand that's what you were saying. My contention was with a specific point you were offering.
The simple fact is, climatologists are also meteorologists. Basically, they are meteorologists with a tiny bit of archeology thrown in. Climatologists who get funding for these studies say the world is ending. Meteorologists, who don't receive funding, say the world is not ending. In fact, they say this is a normal historical trend with some additional curves likely affected by man.
Meteorologists say the computer models climatologists use are garbage. Many climatologists say the computer models are garage. Furthermore, most meteorologists say much of the data is garbage and some climatologists say its garbage. Furthermore, the lion share of the data has errors which fall outside of the margin of error to determine a significant deviation. And I could go on and on and on...
Factually, the only thing we can say, in absolute honestly, we have no fucking idea what's going on. And those who insist we do, are either lying, an idiot, or ignorant. Furthermore, much of the "science" which everyone throws around is nothing but guesses combined with garage and known bad data points.
There's an old axiom; garbage in, garbage out. And yet a large number of climatologists are able to produce meaningful results from garbage, to the dismiss of meteorologists and many other scientists. And on top of that, surprisingly, only those that seem to be able to interpret this garbage are those who are paid to do these studies - and always with more study required.
None of this implies climate change is not taking place. But frankly, that's the only thing we do know is going on. Anything aside from that is pure bullshit.
You honestly think that the Bush administration believed Iraq was a legitimate threat to the US?
I never said such a thing. You did. Why it has to be black and white is beyond me. But those who see it as black and white and most assuredly wrong. I believe W had an agenda. The rest is as I described...but it doesn't change anything that I described, which is an accurate accounting.
Yes, after 9/11 most of the press uncritically absorbed whatever the White House said.
That's not really true either. The press absolutely knew better. But at the same time they knew nothing makes news like war. So they propped it up for their own interests. The moment reporters figured out they couldn't play in a war zone, suddenly, almost over night, everything changed. After all, they wouldn't be able to safely milk their fraud so best to turn it on its head and report on the fraud they created.
But the Bush administration was definitely pulling the strings
Which isn't overwhelming momentum. You forgot a lot of other people had to sign off on this. And this did so on the basis as I originally described.
You mean master craftsman or master carpenter. No, most people who work wood in their garage are neither. And most honest, sane, people will as much tell you this.
As you're too lazy to read the rest of the threat, I'll make this short. The legal definition for "journalist" varies wildly. But by most accepted legal definitions, he is not a journalist. This is a fact that other countries and even LOTS of journalists have put forward before Wikileaks even existed.
Frankly, I don't think you've explained that very well,
LOL. I never said I covered all possible cases.
You seemingly, completely missed the point. You state some should critically examine other's evidence but fail to review their own. The point is, if their own evidence is in fact bad, there isn't a need to examine anyone else's evidence.
The simple fact is, a lot of "evidence" is factually bad and completely based on either bad science or worse, science for purchase. Furthermore, a lot of this science it entirely based on climate simulation models. Surprise! A new model no completely contradicts every other model. Which means, if those original models were worth anything, they would have already identified the problem long ago.
Long story short, most of the "facts" asserted by people are in fact, complete bullshit. Even the basic temperature readings are in question and frequently fall outside the margin of error. Furthermore, the more we study, the more we learn the climate is a far more complex system than we ever realized and have yet many more variables which are not and have never been accounted for in our models.
The simple fact is, anyone who says we have little more than an inkling of how the climate works, let alone what's going on, is an egotistical, clueless, idiot.
I *know* we were told some bad information. I *know* the press fabricated a lot of lies and horribly misrepresented lots of things. You can literally point a finger at the press for telling the most lies - by far.
A minority of incorrect facts came from government; which is not to minimize their significance. The exact number of lies which came from government is questionable as there was a serious breakdown of the process which feeds information to the President and the DoD. It basically became a broken feedback loop. Exactly how much was knowingly false (as in, with malice) and how much was knowingly misrepresented and how much was a creation of the loop will likely never be clear.
The number one lesson which should be learned from all this is the US press is almost entirely untrustworthy.
This is an entirely different situation then presuming everything the government told you was a lie.
The legal definition actually varies. According to some legal standards, he need also be employed - not self employed. As such, he's actually very much in a gray area over and above the typical gray area. The fact he claims to be a journalist, does some of the work of a journalist, but seemingly exists solely to disclose state secrets (which has many, many other negative legal associations), means its not nearly as cut and dry as you suggest.
Furthermore, even many journalists are on the record, before Wikileaks existed, as stating these types of people are not journalists.
So legally, its likely he's not a journalist. Many journalists are on the record stating people like him are not journalist.
But they didn't state that was possible. They state that it can multiply by largely replacing phosphor. Which means some phosphor is still required - just in low quantities. Phosphor is still required and that's explicitly stated. Basically what you're saying validates NASA's experiments and further validates my entire point.
4) Skepticism is good, and thus many people like to think or pretend that they're skeptics. It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who only claim to be skeptics because they do not critically examine their own evidence only the evidence of others.
Interesting statement, but really it doesn't support the position you believe it does.
You have a red shirt. I have a blue shirt. You say your shirt is a color other than red. At this point, it doesn't matter what color I say my shirt is (correct or incorrect), as for starters, what you're saying is factually incorrect. Basically, if we're both wrong, who cares. If you're wrong, then basically we're all good.
If it sounds like recent history, you've not been listening. Unfortunately, that's the majority of Americans. Government says, x, y, and z. Press reports x and maybe a tiny blurb on z. A tiny actually minority hear x. Then some idiot whos job is to entertain but the populous equates to the press says, x, -y, -z and everyone believes it.
That's reality.
Simple fact is, most people who make such claims, such as yours, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about - literally. And when questioned, generally can't answer the most basic facts. Rather, they are parroting incorrect information put forward by deceitful press or entertainment press. Or worse, parrot information said to them by someone else who read a headline and then proceeded to make wild assumptions.
... if you actually believe that bloggers recording a journal of events are not in fact journalists
Its called an eye witness. There is long standing precedence to this, completely without regard for ignorant people who would like to suggestion otherwise. Again, by your definition, pretty much everyone is a journalist.
My understanding is that most of these are secret or classified. As security clearances go, those are pretty low and seem to appropriately reflect the need.
Simply pushing stuff to the web is not the definition of a journalist. By your definition, EVERYONE who has access to pen/pencil and paper, and especially anyone with a blog, is a journalist. Total bullshit.
Secrets in international relationships had always been something the United States was against
Which is probably why those types of secrets have not been kept from the public; save only those which affect the military and intelligence. Case in point, most everything which has been released, has already been widely known (well, widely reported - the lack of knowing underscores the stupidity of the average American) and for a very long time. The parts which were not previously known are the details which should not be made public. The later only serve intelligence and if released, to damage relationships or other diplomatic efforts.
The fact the submitter believes this is dripping with irony, only further underscores how stupid the masses truly are in matters such as these. But his stupidity, I'm sure, who stop others from falling in line with the broken group-think.
Sorry, not true. First off, there are thousands of different types of mines
Sorry...absolutely is true. Period. I was assuming we were talking about anti-personnel mines. Given the context, its the only reasonable assumption. Sure, you can have anti-tank mines, but few anti-personnel cannons are going to be very effective against a tank - especially after it starts firing.
So you are correct is one makes absolutely stupid assumptions. If one makes reasonable assumptions, then you're all wet.
Some mines are meant to injure, but they are in the minority.
The vast majority of anti-personnel mines are intended to injure. That's exactly why so many children wind up with missing limbs. From a mine design perspective, its absolute validation of a successful deployment. From a human perspective, its a travesty.
What's most funny about this is, IMO, is that their criticism isn't peer reviewed and they likely haven't attempted to recreate NASA's experiments, which likely means they are even less knowledgeable, less in a position to comment, and likely extremely hypocritical of the situation.
They may very well be right, especially given how political NASA is these days, but it doesn't change the fact that those throwing stones likely have no cause to do so; glass houses being what they are and all...
Peer review is good. But lets not forget that more and more scientists and physicists are openly complaining of how broken things are in science. These days, all too often, those with the most political clout win in every sense of the word. Meaning, they tend to censor others and in turn receive additional funding. Which ultimately means, most of the whining isn't whining for whining's sake - its for hard cash, more political muscle, and additional prestige.
Its actually fairly easy to argue that better science was done a hundred years ago than is frequently done today.
What is really great about them though is that they can be used s an alternative to landmines.
Its hard to imagine these are much of an alternative to land mines. Land mines are specifically designed to injure - not kill. An injured soldier is out of the fight. The other soldiers who must tend to the injured soldier are not only out of the fight, but demoralized. Everyone who saw the soldier step on that mine is now very fearful, lacking a desire to more forward. They too are demoralized.
Land mine:
injure
demoralize
slow or stop forward progress - removing troop momentum
Auto gun:
kills
Those are huge differences with hugely different impacts on troops.
And all that ignores that those same attributes which create such horrible threat to civilians post-war create an equally horrible threat to the enemy throughout the war. Whereas an auto-cannon requires electricity. As such, offers a very finite threat window and/or a dramatic restriction as to where they can be deployed - unlike a mine. Not to mention a single soldier can deploy dozens of mines.
If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period.
and by definition, you are not a subscriber. So you have absolutely no valid point what so ever.
Magazines are typically subsidized by ads. Subscription prices typically only cover print and distribution, if that. Granted, in this case there isn't anything to print, but they still need that ad revenue. Denial of customer information means they must now pay another party to obtain the exact information they would otherwise have. So basically it means they pay a 30% premium so they can immediately turn around to pay yet another party to obtain the information they previously had free.
In exchange for this customer information, they magazine then attempts to focus their content for the people who actually subscribe to the magazine.
Apple is cutting off everyone's nose to spite everyone who just got their nose cut off.
Basically for this to work means magazines are going to have to find an entirely new business model. I'm not saying it doesn't exist or that it can't be made to work, but it sounds fairly high risk and all for the privilege of paying out a lot more money, in exchange for simply being available in an extra medium. Just about any reasonable business person, at this stage of the game, would tell Apple to go fuck themselves. Unless that is, they have better numbers and a business plan which don't immediately make themselves available to the public.
Really it sounds like they need to release an application and made available content subscriptions via another pay route; which doesn't require Apple's 30%. If that's not available, it seems like Apple is walking a line of illegal product tying. And if that is the case, I sincerely hope the FTC is looking into the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way does this new model "completely contradict" existing models?
If you're asking that question it means you're not in a position to even attempt to participate in the conversation.
As for the rest, that's your assertion, not mine.
I understand that's what you were saying. My contention was with a specific point you were offering.
The simple fact is, climatologists are also meteorologists. Basically, they are meteorologists with a tiny bit of archeology thrown in. Climatologists who get funding for these studies say the world is ending. Meteorologists, who don't receive funding, say the world is not ending. In fact, they say this is a normal historical trend with some additional curves likely affected by man.
Meteorologists say the computer models climatologists use are garbage. Many climatologists say the computer models are garage. Furthermore, most meteorologists say much of the data is garbage and some climatologists say its garbage. Furthermore, the lion share of the data has errors which fall outside of the margin of error to determine a significant deviation. And I could go on and on and on...
Factually, the only thing we can say, in absolute honestly, we have no fucking idea what's going on. And those who insist we do, are either lying, an idiot, or ignorant. Furthermore, much of the "science" which everyone throws around is nothing but guesses combined with garage and known bad data points.
There's an old axiom; garbage in, garbage out. And yet a large number of climatologists are able to produce meaningful results from garbage, to the dismiss of meteorologists and many other scientists. And on top of that, surprisingly, only those that seem to be able to interpret this garbage are those who are paid to do these studies - and always with more study required.
None of this implies climate change is not taking place. But frankly, that's the only thing we do know is going on. Anything aside from that is pure bullshit.
You honestly think that the Bush administration believed Iraq was a legitimate threat to the US?
I never said such a thing. You did. Why it has to be black and white is beyond me. But those who see it as black and white and most assuredly wrong. I believe W had an agenda. The rest is as I described...but it doesn't change anything that I described, which is an accurate accounting.
Yes, after 9/11 most of the press uncritically absorbed whatever the White House said.
That's not really true either. The press absolutely knew better. But at the same time they knew nothing makes news like war. So they propped it up for their own interests. The moment reporters figured out they couldn't play in a war zone, suddenly, almost over night, everything changed. After all, they wouldn't be able to safely milk their fraud so best to turn it on its head and report on the fraud they created.
But the Bush administration was definitely pulling the strings
Which isn't overwhelming momentum. You forgot a lot of other people had to sign off on this. And this did so on the basis as I originally described.
Ahh! But SOME people who work in their garage are master carpenters or craftsmen.
Vague? No. Its obvious they are a master of their craft.
You mean master craftsman or master carpenter. No, most people who work wood in their garage are neither. And most honest, sane, people will as much tell you this.
As you're too lazy to read the rest of the threat, I'll make this short. The legal definition for "journalist" varies wildly. But by most accepted legal definitions, he is not a journalist. This is a fact that other countries and even LOTS of journalists have put forward before Wikileaks even existed.
Frankly, I don't think you've explained that very well,
LOL. I never said I covered all possible cases.
You seemingly, completely missed the point. You state some should critically examine other's evidence but fail to review their own. The point is, if their own evidence is in fact bad, there isn't a need to examine anyone else's evidence.
The simple fact is, a lot of "evidence" is factually bad and completely based on either bad science or worse, science for purchase. Furthermore, a lot of this science it entirely based on climate simulation models. Surprise! A new model no completely contradicts every other model. Which means, if those original models were worth anything, they would have already identified the problem long ago.
Long story short, most of the "facts" asserted by people are in fact, complete bullshit. Even the basic temperature readings are in question and frequently fall outside the margin of error. Furthermore, the more we study, the more we learn the climate is a far more complex system than we ever realized and have yet many more variables which are not and have never been accounted for in our models.
The simple fact is, anyone who says we have little more than an inkling of how the climate works, let alone what's going on, is an egotistical, clueless, idiot.
I *know* we were told some bad information. I *know* the press fabricated a lot of lies and horribly misrepresented lots of things. You can literally point a finger at the press for telling the most lies - by far.
A minority of incorrect facts came from government; which is not to minimize their significance. The exact number of lies which came from government is questionable as there was a serious breakdown of the process which feeds information to the President and the DoD. It basically became a broken feedback loop. Exactly how much was knowingly false (as in, with malice) and how much was knowingly misrepresented and how much was a creation of the loop will likely never be clear.
The number one lesson which should be learned from all this is the US press is almost entirely untrustworthy.
This is an entirely different situation then presuming everything the government told you was a lie.
The legal definition actually varies. According to some legal standards, he need also be employed - not self employed. As such, he's actually very much in a gray area over and above the typical gray area. The fact he claims to be a journalist, does some of the work of a journalist, but seemingly exists solely to disclose state secrets (which has many, many other negative legal associations), means its not nearly as cut and dry as you suggest.
Furthermore, even many journalists are on the record, before Wikileaks existed, as stating these types of people are not journalists.
So legally, its likely he's not a journalist. Many journalists are on the record stating people like him are not journalist.
Basically, chances are, he's not a journalists.
But they didn't state that was possible. They state that it can multiply by largely replacing phosphor. Which means some phosphor is still required - just in low quantities. Phosphor is still required and that's explicitly stated. Basically what you're saying validates NASA's experiments and further validates my entire point.
4) Skepticism is good, and thus many people like to think or pretend that they're skeptics. It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who only claim to be skeptics because they do not critically examine their own evidence only the evidence of others.
Interesting statement, but really it doesn't support the position you believe it does.
You have a red shirt. I have a blue shirt. You say your shirt is a color other than red. At this point, it doesn't matter what color I say my shirt is (correct or incorrect), as for starters, what you're saying is factually incorrect. Basically, if we're both wrong, who cares. If you're wrong, then basically we're all good.
If it sounds like recent history, you've not been listening. Unfortunately, that's the majority of Americans. Government says, x, y, and z. Press reports x and maybe a tiny blurb on z. A tiny actually minority hear x. Then some idiot whos job is to entertain but the populous equates to the press says, x, -y, -z and everyone believes it.
That's reality.
Simple fact is, most people who make such claims, such as yours, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about - literally. And when questioned, generally can't answer the most basic facts. Rather, they are parroting incorrect information put forward by deceitful press or entertainment press. Or worse, parrot information said to them by someone else who read a headline and then proceeded to make wild assumptions.
... if you actually believe that bloggers recording a journal of events are not in fact journalists
Its called an eye witness. There is long standing precedence to this, completely without regard for ignorant people who would like to suggestion otherwise. Again, by your definition, pretty much everyone is a journalist.
My understanding is that most of these are secret or classified. As security clearances go, those are pretty low and seem to appropriately reflect the need.
Which journalists?
Simply pushing stuff to the web is not the definition of a journalist. By your definition, EVERYONE who has access to pen/pencil and paper, and especially anyone with a blog, is a journalist. Total bullshit.
Secrets in international relationships had always been something the United States was against
Which is probably why those types of secrets have not been kept from the public; save only those which affect the military and intelligence. Case in point, most everything which has been released, has already been widely known (well, widely reported - the lack of knowing underscores the stupidity of the average American) and for a very long time. The parts which were not previously known are the details which should not be made public. The later only serve intelligence and if released, to damage relationships or other diplomatic efforts.
The fact the submitter believes this is dripping with irony, only further underscores how stupid the masses truly are in matters such as these. But his stupidity, I'm sure, who stop others from falling in line with the broken group-think.
One of the truly intelligent posts on the topic.
I'd say Java was pretty valuable. Love or hate Java, it's used all over the place.
Seemingly very valuable to most everyone except the IP owners. So to say its not valuable is really a matter of perspective.
Sorry, not true. First off, there are thousands of different types of mines
Sorry...absolutely is true. Period. I was assuming we were talking about anti-personnel mines. Given the context, its the only reasonable assumption. Sure, you can have anti-tank mines, but few anti-personnel cannons are going to be very effective against a tank - especially after it starts firing.
So you are correct is one makes absolutely stupid assumptions. If one makes reasonable assumptions, then you're all wet.
Some mines are meant to injure, but they are in the minority.
The vast majority of anti-personnel mines are intended to injure. That's exactly why so many children wind up with missing limbs. From a mine design perspective, its absolute validation of a successful deployment. From a human perspective, its a travesty.
What's most funny about this is, IMO, is that their criticism isn't peer reviewed and they likely haven't attempted to recreate NASA's experiments, which likely means they are even less knowledgeable, less in a position to comment, and likely extremely hypocritical of the situation.
They may very well be right, especially given how political NASA is these days, but it doesn't change the fact that those throwing stones likely have no cause to do so; glass houses being what they are and all...
Peer review is good. But lets not forget that more and more scientists and physicists are openly complaining of how broken things are in science. These days, all too often, those with the most political clout win in every sense of the word. Meaning, they tend to censor others and in turn receive additional funding. Which ultimately means, most of the whining isn't whining for whining's sake - its for hard cash, more political muscle, and additional prestige.
Its actually fairly easy to argue that better science was done a hundred years ago than is frequently done today.
What is really great about them though is that they can be used s an alternative to landmines.
Its hard to imagine these are much of an alternative to land mines. Land mines are specifically designed to injure - not kill. An injured soldier is out of the fight. The other soldiers who must tend to the injured soldier are not only out of the fight, but demoralized. Everyone who saw the soldier step on that mine is now very fearful, lacking a desire to more forward. They too are demoralized.
Land mine:
injure
demoralize
slow or stop forward progress - removing troop momentum
Auto gun:
kills
Those are huge differences with hugely different impacts on troops.
And all that ignores that those same attributes which create such horrible threat to civilians post-war create an equally horrible threat to the enemy throughout the war. Whereas an auto-cannon requires electricity. As such, offers a very finite threat window and/or a dramatic restriction as to where they can be deployed - unlike a mine. Not to mention a single soldier can deploy dozens of mines.
Which means you demand mediocre products! You must be an American! Let me guess, you ride a Harley too.
So you don't want to subscribe to a magazine that cares about the content as it relates to you, the reader?
If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period.
and by definition, you are not a subscriber. So you have absolutely no valid point what so ever.
Magazines are typically subsidized by ads. Subscription prices typically only cover print and distribution, if that. Granted, in this case there isn't anything to print, but they still need that ad revenue. Denial of customer information means they must now pay another party to obtain the exact information they would otherwise have. So basically it means they pay a 30% premium so they can immediately turn around to pay yet another party to obtain the information they previously had free.
In exchange for this customer information, they magazine then attempts to focus their content for the people who actually subscribe to the magazine.
Apple is cutting off everyone's nose to spite everyone who just got their nose cut off.
Basically for this to work means magazines are going to have to find an entirely new business model. I'm not saying it doesn't exist or that it can't be made to work, but it sounds fairly high risk and all for the privilege of paying out a lot more money, in exchange for simply being available in an extra medium. Just about any reasonable business person, at this stage of the game, would tell Apple to go fuck themselves. Unless that is, they have better numbers and a business plan which don't immediately make themselves available to the public.
Really it sounds like they need to release an application and made available content subscriptions via another pay route; which doesn't require Apple's 30%. If that's not available, it seems like Apple is walking a line of illegal product tying. And if that is the case, I sincerely hope the FTC is looking into the situation.