No, it means exactly what I said. The difference is the two measurement systems. The fact that you divide 7 by 3 doesn't change - in both cases it is still the 2 and 1/3rd; however, as it applies to the measurement systems:
Metric can capture the full extent of the 1/3rd of a meter through the repetitive break down and infinite numbering system (e..g 2 meters 3 decimeters 3 centimeters, etc.).
Imperial can capture a more specific value as 1/3rd of 1 foot is defined as 4 inches exactly.
However, in both cases, it can be represented as simply 2.333... of either meters or feet and still be correct.
You are right in that I had a typo in the following:
Likewise to 7 meters divided by 3 is 7.33.. meters or 7 meter 3 decimeters 3 centimeters...3 nanometers...etc.
It should have been:
Likewise to 7 meters divided by 3 is 2.33.. meters or 2 meter 3 decimeters 3 centimeters...3 nanometers...etc.
Dividing is much easier in metric than imperial. If you have 7 meters and you want to divide by 3, you get 2.33 meters. Someone well acquainted with normal math can do that in his head. if you have 7 feet and you want to divide by 3, you have to awkwardly do it manually - take 2 feet and you have 1 foot left, divide that by 3, that's 4 inches. People who do architecture all their lives can do it, but normal people, and calculators, can't.
Also, 7 kilometers / 3 = 2 km, 333m and 7 meters / 3 = 2 m, 333mm, but:
7 miles / 3 = 2 miles, 1760 feet
7 feet / 3 = 2 feet, 4 inches
7 inches / 3 = 2 inches, 21/64 of an inch (that is how imperial nails and screwdrivers work...)
Once you think about it, metric makes a lot more sense in every way.
If you have 7 feet and divide by 3, you still have 7.33.. feet, and you can write it that way. To write 7 ft. 4 in. is more accurate, but the two are synonymous.
Likewise to 7 meters divided by 3 is 7.33.. meters or 7 meter 3 decimeters 3 centimeters...3 nanometers...etc.
Clinton had nothing to do with the balanced budget. That was, is, and will always be a Congressional issue. The Constitution gave Congress the purse strings.
The difference is not whether or not we borrowed against SS. The difference is that prior SS was not attributed to the balancing of the budget. Congress (a Republican congress, mind you) changed that.
There was the appearance of a budget surplus. Why? B/c they fudged the numbers by including Social Security when they shouldn't have. It was purely a numbers game. Of course, we now also realize how bankrupt the Social Security program is.
The debt issue goes back to nearly every President and Congress since the Great Depression. Between WWII, Social Security, Medicaide/Medicare, and Social Security you can account for nearly all the debt. The amount of spending during Bush's 8 years would pail in comparison (if all figures were adjusted for inflation).
The debt has little to do with Bush - and nearly everything to do with Congress over the last 50+ years.
May not be politically popular but it is the truth.
Perhaps 18 months was how long they needed to sort through 22 million emails and remove any traces of illegal activity. Now that the emails have been sanitized, they have been miraculously "found".
Or to interject incriminating evidence...goes both ways you know...
Then again, it could be the removal of all the bobama@whitehouse.com hrclinton@whitehouse.com emails...
I suspect I will have to disappoint you then: personally I think the verdict on the outcomes of W Bush's/policies and actions/ is already in, and those outcomes were, are, and will be for the (now shortened) lifespan of the United States colossally bad.
Oh, so you're one of the managers who only looks at the 1 year outcome - the quarter 1 year ago, the quarter one year in the future, and pretty much nothing else. Thanks for helping destroy the world economy.
Seriously - it takes a lot longer than 1 or 2 years after a presidents term to be able to see how they did in terms of history. We're still feeling the ramifications of Clinton; some would argue Carter or Reagan too.
Airbus can bet whatever they want, because they won't have to deal with bankruptcy or even losses. The governments of Europe finance them.
Oh, please, let's not pretend the US government does not subsidize Boeing through contracts that only Boeing is allowed to bid for.
There is also General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. All can and do bid on military contracts, both in and out of military aircraft. They, and Boeing, make the Tier 1 contractors that pretty much everyone else has to go through when doing a bid, even if it's getting one of them to simply be a backer.
There are very few contracts that are not allowed to be bid by more than one company - and those are usually illegal, and will almost always be contested by at least on of the other contractors. Usually a single bidder means something is wrong with the RFP, or the other players just don't care (which is rare).
Of course, on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...
This is a lie. Stop repeating it. You either know it's a lie or don't know how to use Google.
Hint - the papers Jones said needed a redefinition of peer review to get rid of were cited in the chapter of the IPCC report that Jones's group edited.
Some censorship.
Nobody's perfect. So they missed a publication...still doesn't prove they weren't colluding to prevent dissenting opinions. And letting one through every now and again helps through investigators off the trail, or at least make the trail a little harder to follow.
The whole "prove the negative" came about because that is the only way to "prove" historical evolution - if you can't find something that says it didn't happen, then it must have...versus, finding the evidence to show that it did happen the way they want it to. Proving the negative is the impossible in many situations; and as such bad science.
Actual science is done very much as you describe - prove the most likely cause through repeatability; verifying that what you say is happening is happening by trying to show it.
It's like debugging a program - first you have to understand the bug; then you have to repeatably reproduce it. Only then can you suggest a fix since only then can you implement a fix and be able to verify with certainty that you actually fixed it, not just masked it so it comes out as something else later.
This basically translates to: first you have to understand the scientific problem/principle in the hypothesis; then you have to be able to repeatably reproduce it so you can show you know how to make it happen; then and only then can you hypothesize on how not to make it happen to show with certainty that you are right, not just pulling it out of your butt.
Sadly, today we are more in for the pull-it-out-of-your-butt conclusions than the prove-it conclusions. Of course, the prove-it conclusions take more time and money to make happen - it's just not economically or politically expedient.
The public's response to the movie 2012 demonstrates that the vast majority of people simply don't have the level of education required to engage in critical thinking. Public lack of scientific education is the core problem here.
What do you expect from a generation that has been raised on "all answers are right, here's your reward even though you got -2 when adding 2+3." Seriously, the whole "gotta reassure their self-esteem" thing is the biggest problem in education today - not lack of scientific education.
Then of course we get the to the whole critical thinking issues, which most colleges (and especially in science) have completely abandoned. I quotes a book on the topic a while back - where the author did a lot of research and found the liberal Christian colleges (Calvin College, Messiah College) did far better with critical thinking than the public colleges. Yeah go figure on that one - examine the issues at hand, debate them, and arrive at a conclusion does better than "evolution is the way, no other"...hmm...critical thinking, yep....gotcha there.
That's one of the reasons we have open source licenses. So we can fork if we have to.
He did already - it's called MariaDB. He just doesn't like the fact that his fork has to be GPL only - he can't integrate any commercial code like he did when he owned MySQL AB. I don't think I can put it any better here than I did at Groklaw (see this comment. Basically:
Monty made MySQL; licensed it under a dual license (GPL + MySQL Commercial License)
dual license structure worked well for MySQL AB - prevented commercial competitors, fostered community around GPL version
Monty sold MySQL AB to Sun for $1B without changing the license. No compliants; he worked for Sun.
Sun seems to be under the gun and going to get sold off - Monty quits, tries to fork MySQL as MariaDB. Wants to build a new "MySQL AB" under another name; but the dual license prevents it.
See opportunity to force Sun to change the license so he can keep his money from the sale, while still getting all the code, possibly also the commercial code, and redo MySQL AB
Monty's looking to do a "rinse-repeat".
Monty just doesn't like the hand that he dealt himself - one he had every opportunity to change while he owned MySQL AB, probably even would have been able to influence while he was a Sun Employee too; but never complained (that we know of while he was at Sun) and never did (when he had the chance himself - he could of done it as part of the sale to Sun).
Yeah - he could just setup a services-oriented company around MySQL; but he doesn't want that - he wants his MySQL back, as well as the money he took from Sun. It's all about his wallet; nothing else.
And of course, everybody everywhere has the time and the intellect to assess all the evidence of every scientific theory they want to form an opinion about and then form a judgement based on that evidence.
Very often when it comes to science the issues are so complex and the evidence so voluminous that one has no choice but to defer to experts: people whose lives have been dedicated to understanding and making such a judgement. They are likely to be more qualified and make a better judgement given the available evidence than me.
So long as there isn't sufficient conflict of interest, which is basically the problem now as a number of fields have setup a strawman depending on each other. One goes down and they all do. So there is a lot of interest in keeping it from falling down even though the fall is inevitable.
The way to get ahead in science, if you want to really make your mark, is to kill the darling theories of your elders in a hail of factual bullets. Scientists are like sharks and lame hypotheses are blood in the water.
That's also a good way to get yourself ridiculed out of the field, or treated like Galileo was. Problem is - too many have their PHd's based on those darling theories, so they will do almost anything to ensure said theories survive, including ridiculing challengers out of the field or at least to a minority position where they will struggle to get enough money to continue their research. Facts be damned.
Honestly - that's what the fear is right now - that that will come out in more areas of scientific study. Sadly, it probably will.
Will people doubt science as a whole? Or math? Or Physics? Well - they'll probably doubt the stuff they don't understand, and things like evolution, global warming, string theory, etc. will have a harder time of it, in some cases justly; and in some cases it may be the catalyst needed for the alternative ideas that better represent reality to surface. Time will tell. Math and Physics (in general) probably don't have anything to worry about though as they are generally understood and testable. To the degree something can be tested to show it accurate, people will accept it. To the degree it can't be - it'll be scrutinized.
Apparently the numbers that were used have been verified as accurate.
How can the numbers have been verified to be accurate when the CRU in question admitted to throwing out the RAW data used to generate the numbers? No one can go back to the RAW data and show that the numbers were correctly processed. Please cite your verifications - and they better not be others who relied on the same RAW data that has been admitted to have been destroyed. (Good luck with that one.)
Interesting. Good to know too. I don't use as many extensions at home; but I do have a rather large inbox with Yahoo! - mainly b/c I have gotten out of the habit of downloading them at home on a regular basis with my desktop being off for long stretches of time. I have over 32k messages in my inbox; and other folders with similar sizes (most folders I dump into my inbox on a regular basis with a couple exceptions - since the POP3 will only allow download from the Inbox folder).
TB2 (really, the Courier IMAP daemon and Maildir structure, where each email is a separate file) handles my 4.2GB pretty well. Note, though, that I'm pretty rigorous about creating a new dated folder and updating the filter rules at the start of each calendar quarter, Thus, no folder has more than 10-12K messages.
What a process and something that there is no need for. Just keep pushing them into the same folders. If you need to, setup a set of filters to do a backup once a month instead of having to create new dated folders; or just follows Mozilla's recommended backup method, which is similar to the following:
close Thunderbird
locate your profile folder
copy the folder to a backup location
open Thunderbird
delete messages older than you want
Only difference is they have you rebuild your entire profile, which could be quite cumbersome if you have a lot of folders.
From what I understand - reading the blogs by WSJ and others behind the takedown of McColo - it wasn't just a matter of taking out McColo; but also discovering all the domains that the botnets were checking for and getting ahead of it to shut them down. And it was far more than just a few days - it was about a month or so before anything really picked up again - and my spam folder went from 100+/per day to ~8/day.
Slashdot Mirror
However, in both cases, it can be represented as simply 2.333... of either meters or feet and still be correct.
You are right in that I had a typo in the following:
It should have been:
Dividing is much easier in metric than imperial. If you have 7 meters and you want to divide by 3, you get 2.33 meters. Someone well acquainted with normal math can do that in his head. if you have 7 feet and you want to divide by 3, you have to awkwardly do it manually - take 2 feet and you have 1 foot left, divide that by 3, that's 4 inches. People who do architecture all their lives can do it, but normal people, and calculators, can't.
Also, 7 kilometers / 3 = 2 km, 333m and 7 meters / 3 = 2 m, 333mm, but:
7 miles / 3 = 2 miles, 1760 feet 7 feet / 3 = 2 feet, 4 inches 7 inches / 3 = 2 inches, 21/64 of an inch (that is how imperial nails and screwdrivers work...)
Once you think about it, metric makes a lot more sense in every way.
If you have 7 feet and divide by 3, you still have 7.33.. feet, and you can write it that way. To write 7 ft. 4 in. is more accurate, but the two are synonymous.
Likewise to 7 meters divided by 3 is 7.33.. meters or 7 meter 3 decimeters 3 centimeters...3 nanometers...etc.
How is it any less of a religion
Just a wild guess, but maybe lack of the supernatural has something to do with it?
I guess it would then be preferred to have an absolute lack of anything then?
Now prove that this is the only data set that is used to make climate change observations.
Prove to me you don't beat your wife.
He has a wife? I'd have thought here on /. that it would be:
Prove to me you have a wife..
Microsoft's commitment not to sue Novell or Novell customers now extends to redistributors.
Hmm...may be its the technology? Perhaps no in else is interested in it?
CBS News: Democrats and Republicans join forces to save jobs; Oncologists seek ban of certain cancer treatments. More at 5.
Clinton had nothing to do with the balanced budget. That was, is, and will always be a Congressional issue. The Constitution gave Congress the purse strings.
The difference is not whether or not we borrowed against SS. The difference is that prior SS was not attributed to the balancing of the budget. Congress (a Republican congress, mind you) changed that.
Clinton's departure there was a budget surplus,
There was the appearance of a budget surplus. Why? B/c they fudged the numbers by including Social Security when they shouldn't have. It was purely a numbers game. Of course, we now also realize how bankrupt the Social Security program is.
The debt issue goes back to nearly every President and Congress since the Great Depression. Between WWII, Social Security, Medicaide/Medicare, and Social Security you can account for nearly all the debt. The amount of spending during Bush's 8 years would pail in comparison (if all figures were adjusted for inflation).
The debt has little to do with Bush - and nearly everything to do with Congress over the last 50+ years.
May not be politically popular but it is the truth.
Why not tie it back to moving the US off the Gold Standard to allow the debt to grow?
Or to interject incriminating evidence...goes both ways you know...
Then again, it could be the removal of all the bobama@whitehouse.com hrclinton@whitehouse.com emails...
Oh, so you're one of the managers who only looks at the 1 year outcome - the quarter 1 year ago, the quarter one year in the future, and pretty much nothing else. Thanks for helping destroy the world economy.
Seriously - it takes a lot longer than 1 or 2 years after a presidents term to be able to see how they did in terms of history. We're still feeling the ramifications of Clinton; some would argue Carter or Reagan too.
Airbus can bet whatever they want, because they won't have to deal with bankruptcy or even losses. The governments of Europe finance them.
Oh, please, let's not pretend the US government does not subsidize Boeing through contracts that only Boeing is allowed to bid for.
There is also General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. All can and do bid on military contracts, both in and out of military aircraft. They, and Boeing, make the Tier 1 contractors that pretty much everyone else has to go through when doing a bid, even if it's getting one of them to simply be a backer. There are very few contracts that are not allowed to be bid by more than one company - and those are usually illegal, and will almost always be contested by at least on of the other contractors. Usually a single bidder means something is wrong with the RFP, or the other players just don't care (which is rare).
This is a lie. Stop repeating it. You either know it's a lie or don't know how to use Google.
Hint - the papers Jones said needed a redefinition of peer review to get rid of were cited in the chapter of the IPCC report that Jones's group edited.
Some censorship.
Nobody's perfect. So they missed a publication...still doesn't prove they weren't colluding to prevent dissenting opinions. And letting one through every now and again helps through investigators off the trail, or at least make the trail a little harder to follow.
The whole "prove the negative" came about because that is the only way to "prove" historical evolution - if you can't find something that says it didn't happen, then it must have...versus, finding the evidence to show that it did happen the way they want it to. Proving the negative is the impossible in many situations; and as such bad science.
Actual science is done very much as you describe - prove the most likely cause through repeatability; verifying that what you say is happening is happening by trying to show it.
It's like debugging a program - first you have to understand the bug; then you have to repeatably reproduce it. Only then can you suggest a fix since only then can you implement a fix and be able to verify with certainty that you actually fixed it, not just masked it so it comes out as something else later.
This basically translates to: first you have to understand the scientific problem/principle in the hypothesis; then you have to be able to repeatably reproduce it so you can show you know how to make it happen; then and only then can you hypothesize on how not to make it happen to show with certainty that you are right, not just pulling it out of your butt.
Sadly, today we are more in for the pull-it-out-of-your-butt conclusions than the prove-it conclusions. Of course, the prove-it conclusions take more time and money to make happen - it's just not economically or politically expedient.
The public's response to the movie 2012 demonstrates that the vast majority of people simply don't have the level of education required to engage in critical thinking. Public lack of scientific education is the core problem here.
What do you expect from a generation that has been raised on "all answers are right, here's your reward even though you got -2 when adding 2+3." Seriously, the whole "gotta reassure their self-esteem" thing is the biggest problem in education today - not lack of scientific education.
Then of course we get the to the whole critical thinking issues, which most colleges (and especially in science) have completely abandoned. I quotes a book on the topic a while back - where the author did a lot of research and found the liberal Christian colleges (Calvin College, Messiah College) did far better with critical thinking than the public colleges. Yeah go figure on that one - examine the issues at hand, debate them, and arrive at a conclusion does better than "evolution is the way, no other"...hmm...critical thinking, yep....gotcha there.
That's one of the reasons we have open source licenses. So we can fork if we have to.
He did already - it's called MariaDB. He just doesn't like the fact that his fork has to be GPL only - he can't integrate any commercial code like he did when he owned MySQL AB. I don't think I can put it any better here than I did at Groklaw (see this comment. Basically:
Monty just doesn't like the hand that he dealt himself - one he had every opportunity to change while he owned MySQL AB, probably even would have been able to influence while he was a Sun Employee too; but never complained (that we know of while he was at Sun) and never did (when he had the chance himself - he could of done it as part of the sale to Sun).
Yeah - he could just setup a services-oriented company around MySQL; but he doesn't want that - he wants his MySQL back, as well as the money he took from Sun. It's all about his wallet; nothing else.
If one side is only discrediting the other side to push a self-serving agenda, then the system can't work.
Welcome to Evolution. All things against are wholly denied.
And of course, everybody everywhere has the time and the intellect to assess all the evidence of every scientific theory they want to form an opinion about and then form a judgement based on that evidence.
Very often when it comes to science the issues are so complex and the evidence so voluminous that one has no choice but to defer to experts: people whose lives have been dedicated to understanding and making such a judgement. They are likely to be more qualified and make a better judgement given the available evidence than me.
So long as there isn't sufficient conflict of interest, which is basically the problem now as a number of fields have setup a strawman depending on each other. One goes down and they all do. So there is a lot of interest in keeping it from falling down even though the fall is inevitable.
That's also a good way to get yourself ridiculed out of the field, or treated like Galileo was. Problem is - too many have their PHd's based on those darling theories, so they will do almost anything to ensure said theories survive, including ridiculing challengers out of the field or at least to a minority position where they will struggle to get enough money to continue their research. Facts be damned.
Honestly - that's what the fear is right now - that that will come out in more areas of scientific study. Sadly, it probably will.
Will people doubt science as a whole? Or math? Or Physics? Well - they'll probably doubt the stuff they don't understand, and things like evolution, global warming, string theory, etc. will have a harder time of it, in some cases justly; and in some cases it may be the catalyst needed for the alternative ideas that better represent reality to surface. Time will tell. Math and Physics (in general) probably don't have anything to worry about though as they are generally understood and testable. To the degree something can be tested to show it accurate, people will accept it. To the degree it can't be - it'll be scrutinized.
As it will be in another 20 years..
How can the numbers have been verified to be accurate when the CRU in question admitted to throwing out the RAW data used to generate the numbers? No one can go back to the RAW data and show that the numbers were correctly processed. Please cite your verifications - and they better not be others who relied on the same RAW data that has been admitted to have been destroyed. (Good luck with that one.)
Interesting. Good to know too. I don't use as many extensions at home; but I do have a rather large inbox with Yahoo! - mainly b/c I have gotten out of the habit of downloading them at home on a regular basis with my desktop being off for long stretches of time. I have over 32k messages in my inbox; and other folders with similar sizes (most folders I dump into my inbox on a regular basis with a couple exceptions - since the POP3 will only allow download from the Inbox folder).
What a process and something that there is no need for. Just keep pushing them into the same folders. If you need to, setup a set of filters to do a backup once a month instead of having to create new dated folders; or just follows Mozilla's recommended backup method, which is similar to the following:
Only difference is they have you rebuild your entire profile, which could be quite cumbersome if you have a lot of folders.
Oh, and almost forgot - the C&C also ended up getting tranferred out of the USA for what the spammer did recover.
From what I understand - reading the blogs by WSJ and others behind the takedown of McColo - it wasn't just a matter of taking out McColo; but also discovering all the domains that the botnets were checking for and getting ahead of it to shut them down. And it was far more than just a few days - it was about a month or so before anything really picked up again - and my spam folder went from 100+/per day to ~8/day.