Re:The Scientific Debate ended--others fade only n
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 1
Well, of COURSE RealClimate.org takes pains to "deflate" the climate change deniers! But Monckton is not denying that climate is changing. He claims that a) the data have been grossly distorted, exaggerated and even fabricated, and b) the UK's way of addressing climate change and energy conservation is idiotic. He also addresses the RealClimate criticisms of his analysis in his second article, pointing out that his calculations do NOT assume the Earth is a black body, for instance. (BTW, I can't muster much regard for an outfit that stoops to ad hominem snottiness in every other sentence, i. e., "a viscount, no less, with obviously too much time on his hands".)
ScuttleMonkey, you could split frog's hair.:-) I infer that you agree with J. Edgar Hoover, who wrote, "Justice is incidental to Law and Order." Instead of quibbling over the legal distinction between e-mail and IM, we should be discussing the much larger issue of piling on multiple charges for one criminal act. This guy was nailed with luring a minor via the Internet. He should not also be tagged with luring a child via e-mail. It is commonplace to pile on charges that basically say the same thing even when the Internet is not involved. It is also common to charge someone with conspiracy - a felony - to commit a mere misdemeanor. This is all bullshit that should not be tolerated. One crime, one charge.
In the climate change debate, one figure is real. The Sunday Telegraph's website registered more than 127,000 hits in response to last week's article revealing that the UN had minimised the sun's role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming threefold.
The views of 200 readers who emailed me are in the link above. About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments.
Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph.
This thread's headline is utter bullshit. Sherman defends fair use. It's the "all's fair" definition of fair use to which he objects. So do I, a freelance content creator.
Anyone remember Boardwatch magazine, the first trade rag covering dial-up bulletin board systems? In its infancy, when the thing was printed on a 9-pin Epson dot matrix printer, publisher Jack Rickard was invited to speak to the Colorado Computer Users Group - for free, of course. He prepared a presentation and showed up on time. He found photocopies of his entire subscription-based newsletter on a table outside of the meeting room, free for anyone who passed by. Jack turned around and went home, of course.
That's not fair use, that's "garden-variety theft", as Supreme Court Justic Byer put it.
I conclude that, to students who are "well qualified academically," all "upper middle-tier" universities are pretty much alike academically. That leaves the color schemes of dorm rooms as the decisive factor.
A snail crawled into a Porsche dealership and bought a red 911. He asked the dealer to paint a big white "S" on each door. When the dealer asked why, the snail replied,
"So I can hear people say, 'Look at that S car go!'"
I have never seen a "public nuisance" law that didn't require the existence of a nuisance as a prerequisite to its enforcement. The game hasn't been released anywhere yet, let alone in Florida, so it cannot be causing a nuisance, public or private.
This trend may be new to the IT industry, but it shouldn't be a surprise. Jobs go where labor is cheap. Productive economic activity generates more jobs than there are people to fill them locally. Then people go where the jobs are. That's how economics distributes populations.
It's a good thing, IMHO, to reverse the flow of populations from rural to urban areas, and from overdeveloped nations to underdeveloped nations. Such dispersion of populations is good for the environment. An American in India will consume less resources and generate less garbage than the same American at home, because India's consumption infrastructure can't hold a candle to that of the U. S. For example, the average Indian consumes 588 cubic meters of water and generates 1.3 metric tons of CO2 annually, vs. 1,677 cubic meters and 21.7 tons of CO2 for a U. S. resident. (Source: "Population & Consumption," National Wildlife Federation, 2001) An American guest worker won't live exactly like the average Indian, but his consumption and pollution will be constrained to a significant degree. That's a good thing.
The Industrial Revolution literally dragged people from farms to factories, forcing them into overcrowded cities. The Internet Revolution is reversing that trend, again enabling people to live and work in places unsuitable for factories. There is no longer compelling reason for most of us to crowd close to ore deposits, harbors, river confluences, railroads, and other points of industrial interest.
It should surprise no one that IT workers are among the first to take advantage of this newfound freedom to live where one chooses.
I do find this situation ironic, in that it's a mirror image of the immigration debate now raging in the U. S. India is experiencing an "invasion" of highly skilled foreigners, not lettuce pickers. The workers are coming from a high-income nation to one with a lower per capita income, in contrast to Mexico-to-U. S. immigration. It is the upwardly mobile Indian who feels threatened by foreign workers, while in the U. S. it's the marginally employable. Very interesting.
"Show me an employer who places indiscriminate blocks on numbers that you can call during the day, in order to prevent you from making calls that *might* be personal."
I briefly worked for an employer who checked my phone logs each day for local calls, because my job entailed only long-distance calls. Any incoming calls for me were routed through him, too. He was a dick.
1-900 and other pay-per-minute numbers are routinely blocked on company phone lines.
All sorts of inbound-only phone reps cannot place ANY outbound calls - except, perhaps, to 911.
Personal phone calls tend to brief, perhaps because people feel exposed; the boss can hear what you're saying if he passes by. But surfing a gambling site looks no different from surfing the company intranet if the boss is on the wrong side of your screen. Web surfers tend to stay off-task longer phone malingerers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, of COURSE RealClimate.org takes pains to "deflate" the climate change deniers! But Monckton is not denying that climate is changing. He claims that a) the data have been grossly distorted, exaggerated and even fabricated, and b) the UK's way of addressing climate change and energy conservation is idiotic. He also addresses the RealClimate criticisms of his analysis in his second article, pointing out that his calculations do NOT assume the Earth is a black body, for instance. (BTW, I can't muster much regard for an outfit that stoops to ad hominem snottiness in every other sentence, i. e., "a viscount, no less, with obviously too much time on his hands".)
Perhaps kids are leaving school because they've learned what they need to know in order to make a living. They've just done it sooner than expected.
ScuttleMonkey, you could split frog's hair. :-) I infer that you agree with J. Edgar Hoover, who wrote, "Justice is incidental to Law and Order." Instead of quibbling over the legal distinction between e-mail and IM, we should be discussing the much larger issue of piling on multiple charges for one criminal act. This guy was nailed with luring a minor via the Internet. He should not also be tagged with luring a child via e-mail. It is commonplace to pile on charges that basically say the same thing even when the Internet is not involved. It is also common to charge someone with conspiracy - a felony - to commit a mere misdemeanor. This is all bullshit that should not be tolerated. One crime, one charge.
It's barely getting started.
e ws/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
In the climate change debate, one figure is real. The Sunday Telegraph's website registered more than 127,000 hits in response to last week's article revealing that the UN had minimised the sun's role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming threefold.
The views of 200 readers who emailed me are in the link above. About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments.
Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph.
This thread's headline is utter bullshit. Sherman defends fair use. It's the "all's fair" definition of fair use to which he objects. So do I, a freelance content creator.
Anyone remember Boardwatch magazine, the first trade rag covering dial-up bulletin board systems? In its infancy, when the thing was printed on a 9-pin Epson dot matrix printer, publisher Jack Rickard was invited to speak to the Colorado Computer Users Group - for free, of course. He prepared a presentation and showed up on time. He found photocopies of his entire subscription-based newsletter on a table outside of the meeting room, free for anyone who passed by. Jack turned around and went home, of course.
That's not fair use, that's "garden-variety theft", as Supreme Court Justic Byer put it.
... Friend of mine is stuck down in Ole Miss for a while. He told me last Saturday that the want-ads often go a week without a single IT ad.
The question is NOT whether global warming is "true" or "false". The question is, "Should we change the ways in which we treat this planet NOW?"
"Further research is required" is simply a "no" vote.
Global warming, or more precisely its predicted consequences, is a good reason to change our ways NOW. "Further research" is just procrastination.
... to just kill all the blind people and pay their loved ones hush money?
From the Miami Herald article:
"As for a conspiracy, election officials say that the machines can get out of sync if a particular spot is overused..."
So too many people are voting for Democrats?
... to withhold bad news until after the midterm elections!
"Rogue sysadmins" are humanity's moles inside of the Evil Corporate Empire.
Didn't I read somewhere that immigrants to the Netherlands must take a tutorial on public nudity? Might be worth the other indignities! ;-)
Only $141 billion worth of pot worldwide?
Geddoudahere!
I conclude that, to students who are "well qualified academically," all "upper middle-tier" universities are pretty much alike academically. That leaves the color schemes of dorm rooms as the decisive factor.
A snail crawled into a Porsche dealership and bought a red 911. He asked the dealer to paint a big white "S" on each door. When the dealer asked why, the snail replied,
"So I can hear people say, 'Look at that S car go!'"
I have never seen a "public nuisance" law that didn't require the existence of a nuisance as a prerequisite to its enforcement. The game hasn't been released anywhere yet, let alone in Florida, so it cannot be causing a nuisance, public or private.
See, that's exactly what Schneier is ranting about - you're spreading fear!
I'm amused by the amount of journalistic talent being devoted to explanations of "pretexting" - as if readers don't know "lying" when they see it. :-)
I called it "ruse calling" when I was in the executive search business.
This trend may be new to the IT industry, but it shouldn't be a surprise. Jobs go where labor is cheap. Productive economic activity generates more jobs than there are people to fill them locally. Then people go where the jobs are. That's how economics distributes populations.
It's a good thing, IMHO, to reverse the flow of populations from rural to urban areas, and from overdeveloped nations to underdeveloped nations. Such dispersion of populations is good for the environment. An American in India will consume less resources and generate less garbage than the same American at home, because India's consumption infrastructure can't hold a candle to that of the U. S. For example, the average Indian consumes 588 cubic meters of water and generates 1.3 metric tons of CO2 annually, vs. 1,677 cubic meters and 21.7 tons of CO2 for a U. S. resident. (Source: "Population & Consumption," National Wildlife Federation, 2001) An American guest worker won't live exactly like the average Indian, but his consumption and pollution will be constrained to a significant degree. That's a good thing.
The Industrial Revolution literally dragged people from farms to factories, forcing them into overcrowded cities. The Internet Revolution is reversing that trend, again enabling people to live and work in places unsuitable for factories. There is no longer compelling reason for most of us to crowd close to ore deposits, harbors, river confluences, railroads, and other points of industrial interest.
It should surprise no one that IT workers are among the first to take advantage of this newfound freedom to live where one chooses.
I do find this situation ironic, in that it's a mirror image of the immigration debate now raging in the U. S. India is experiencing an "invasion" of highly skilled foreigners, not lettuce pickers. The workers are coming from a high-income nation to one with a lower per capita income, in contrast to Mexico-to-U. S. immigration. It is the upwardly mobile Indian who feels threatened by foreign workers, while in the U. S. it's the marginally employable. Very interesting.
... that has made sooooo much money for the NY Times?
Problems solved.
Niney percent of Life is just showing up, according to Woody Allen. So make 90% of the grade "attendance."
Did anyone bother to see if the spammed stock picks made money?
Christ, I'd just copy the data to my servers and hand the discs back to the customer! Who wrote this unfair contract?
"Show me an employer who places indiscriminate blocks on numbers that you can call during the day, in order to prevent you from making calls that *might* be personal."
I briefly worked for an employer who checked my phone logs each day for local calls, because my job entailed only long-distance calls. Any incoming calls for me were routed through him, too. He was a dick.
1-900 and other pay-per-minute numbers are routinely blocked on company phone lines.
All sorts of inbound-only phone reps cannot place ANY outbound calls - except, perhaps, to 911.
Personal phone calls tend to brief, perhaps because people feel exposed; the boss can hear what you're saying if he passes by. But surfing a gambling site looks no different from surfing the company intranet if the boss is on the wrong side of your screen. Web surfers tend to stay off-task longer phone malingerers.