Mann was a pioneer in working out the statistics for this kind of study. It's no great surprise that he didn't get it perfect the first time. Ground-breaking work is rarely perfect. And considering that numerous subsequent studies have supported his conclusions, he clearly got it close enough to get the right answer. And while you may nitpick his descriptions of his methods in a space-constrained scientific paper, you'd have to show pretty strong evidence that he was actually trying to hide anything.
The choice of a threshold for statistical significance is dictated by the acceptable likelihood of a false positive or false negative result. Reducing the risk of false positives increases the risk of a false negative. The standard in many fields is less that a 1 in 20 risk of a false positive and less than 1 in 5 risk of false negative, but the actual choice is dependent upon the impact of a false positive or negative on the conclusions. I would not publish a paper (and likely would find it hard to get acceptance) where the conclusion was entirely dependent upon a single result that barely met the p less than 0.05 criterion
When somebody trots out the "sun is a major primary climate driver" line, you know that they've never read a lick of real climate science. Yes, climate scientists have noticed that big glowing ball in the sky, and the sun plays a major role in their analysis. As it happens, CO2 would have no effect on climate if the sun wasn't up there (the earth would be a frozen ball of ice, too, but never mind). Climate scientists checked and rechecked wither changes in solar radiation could account for the warming trend, and the evidence is overwhelming that there has not been no change in the sun's output sufficient to explain the observations.
The 6-sigma business basically applies to fields such as particle physics that pore through huge amounts of data looking for subtle statistical correlations. In this case, it is not possible to make the appropriate statistical corrections for multiple comparisons as scientists in other fields do, so they compensate by setting a very high criterion for statistical significance.
Can you please at least agree that this looks very bad. "We've got data that proves bla-bla, now agree to Kyoto and pay trillions !", "Okay, let's see that data", "no you can't have you'll just use it to discredit our cause".
Can you explain why it would be such a bad thing to give climate skeptics full access to the data ? Why wouldn't that be a very good thing ?
Sorry, but you've basically fallen for a deception. In reality, climate science is one of the most open fields of science in providing access to raw data, and there is (and has been for years) easily enough data available to check the conclusions of climate science. Indeed, one of the investigatory commissions formed after the "Climate Research Unit" email theft was able to independently obtain the data and replicate CRUs conclusions with no difficulty.
What really happened was this: CRU does acquire data and does not own any raw data. They analyzed data provided form National Weather Services, but they do not archive this data, did not have permission to distribute it, and had no reason to retain copies after they were done with it. Some climate "skeptics" demanded the data from CRU, and CRU told them that CRU did not have the data available to distribute, and that they should request the data from the owners, and refused to cooperate further. Filtered through the "climate science skeptic" propaganda machine, this became "Climate scientists are hiding (or in some versions, destroying) the data!!!" CRU was not wholly without fault in the matter (they could have been more cooperative without violating their scientific and ethical obligations toward the owners of the data). But it is entirely a myth that the data to check whether the world is warming is unavailable. It is available, and it has been checked and rechecked by multiple independent groups.
Actually, no. McIntyre proved that there was a technical flaw in Mann's method of statistical analysis that could occasionally cause an artifactual upturn (or, with equal probability, a downturn) at the end, but despite analyzing a large number of noise data sets, he was not able to find even one case that generated an upturn that approached the magnitude of Mann's "hockey stick" analysis. So, correctly interpreted, McIntyre's results proved that it was highly unlikely that Mann's Hockey Stick curve could result from the artifact. So it is not surprising that numerous subsequent studies, using analyses not subject to this error, and also looking at other types of climate data, have confirmed that the hockey stick is correct.
So in the end, McIntyre's technical criticism of Mann's approach (which at worst involved a subtlety of statistical analysis that no reasonable scientist would have called a "fraud") turned out to be correct, but irrelevant to Mann's conclusion.
This is probably the biggest problem with this approach. If the vaccine does not apply to the entire family of alkaloid opiates, then addicts would just switch to a different opiates. But if it does, then standard opiates would likely be ineffective unless injected directly into the central nervous system (e.g. by spinal injection).
On the other hand, it is hard to get good pain relief with opiates in addicts, anyway, because they are resistant. And abstinent addicts want to avoid opiate pain relievers because they can stimulate craving.
So if you're an addict, you already have a serious problem if you need major pain relief.
Endogenous opiates are peptides, not alkaloids, so it is extremely unlikely that antibodies directed against alkaloid opiates would bind to endogenous opiates. Also, antibodies do not readily enter the brain.
Addicts do get off opiates and stay off for extended periods of time, although it is difficult and there is a constant risk of relapse. Withdrawal symptoms go away after a fairly short time, but the craving generally comes back from time to time, and can be triggered by "reminders" of drug use. So a vaccine that made it harder to "fall off the wagon" in response to an attack of craving would likely be helpful to abstinent addicts.
No, if this works like other vaccines being developed against addictive drugs, the antibodies would bind to the heroin molecule itself, leaving the receptors untouched. And since endogenous opiates are structurally very different, and since antibodies have limited access to the brain, it would not affect the action of endogenous opiates.
The one real drawback that I can think of is that if the vaccine immunized against all opiates, then it would be hard to get effective pain relief with opiates in somebody who has been vaccinated. Of course, it is hard to get effective pain relief in opiate addicts anyway, due to resistance, so this may not be as big a drawback as it seems. On the other hand, if it did not immunize against the entire family, then addicts probably would just switch to a different opiate.
It is unlikely that this kind of treatment would be compulsory, although if effective it might be offered as an alternative to incarceration to addicts found guilty of opiate-related crimes. And I think that there are many people who would choose it voluntarily to help them stay off of opiates.
And since you don't trust the majority to make what you perceive as the correct choice, you — like every tin-point dictator — want to see them deprived of choice. I think you are basically the same as the purveyors of DRM — trying to use technology to impose your will upon others. But with DRM, the ultimate choice remains with the user, who can choose whether or not to purchase DRM-protected products, and can decide what price they are willing to pay. You, on the other hand, want to impose crippleware that deprives them of choice.
I believe that the key difference between us is that I have more belief than you in the wisdom of the crowd. I think that DRM will ultimately die a natural death (as it already has for music) because a) it never provides perfect protection, b) it imposes costs on the user, which make them less willing to pay for DRM-protected products, and c) it imposes costs on the seller, for maintenance and upgrades.
I also believe that trying to technologically "lock out" DRM is ultimately doomed to failure, in the same way that the use of DRM to technologically "lock out" copying is doomed to failure, and for much the same reasons.
No, that was precisely it. IIRC, the catalyst of it was iTunes removing DRM. So as a distributor you could either sell through iTunes, which didn't give you DRM but had a huge userbase, or you could sell it DRMed to a tiny market. Guess which was the better option economically.
Actually, Apple initially offered music labels the option of offering music with DRM, or without DRM at a somewhat higher price than DRM-protected media. This was successful enough that more labels jumped on the DRM-free bandwagon, and Apple eventually was able to drop DRM altogether.
Actually, nobody knows whether there is effective treatment for autism in infants. Until autism can be reliably diagnosed in infants, there is no way to test whether any kind of early intervention will improve outcome.
No, you remain free to make your own decision whether or not you will subject yourself to the restrictions of DRM-protected products. You are even free to attempt to persuade others to do likewise. If you are persuasive enough, then you and those who agree with you will constitute a market, and manufacturers will offer DRM-free products to make money from you (which is how music was freed from DRM).
But you don't want to persuade, you want to dictate. I am unimpressed by your contention that you should be able to take away my option to choose because, like every would-be dictator, you think that you are smarter than me.
What they'll do is force you to buy software and hardware that they control and you can't use without their permission, in order to enforce their DRM system.
This makes no sense. The existence of software on my computer capable of reading DRM-protected media--if and only if I choose to ask it to do so--does not give anybody else "control" of my computer. I still choose whether or not to buy DRM-protected media. If I don't agree with the restrictions on a piece of software or a type of media, then I don't use it. Are you seriously trying to argue that by denying me the ability to make that choice, you are protecting me from being forced?
And when I say "force" I mean they'll make it so you cannot buy software and hardware which does not abide by their restrictions.
So what? There are lots of things that are not available to me for purchase under the terms that I would prefer. I'd like to buy a Jaguar sports car for $19.95, but I can't. Does that mean that I am being "forced?"
Nobody can force DRM video on me, because movies are not a necessity of life, so nobody can require me to buy DRM video if I don't want to. I can make my own decision. I have no problem with people advocating to me that I not purchase DRM products. What I object to is people trying to take that choice away from me by obstructing DRM technology development.
Why would anybody want to have access to "DRM protected content"? It gains you nothing over plain content. When DRM for music went away, were you suddenly unable to buy music? No, they still sell it to you, just without DRM. And you probably get it cheaper too, because without DRM they have no hold on you.
Having access to DRM protected content means that the choice is mine whether to deal with companies that offer only DRM protected content. Personally, DRM is not a religious issue to me; I care about access and convenience. However, because DRM can potentially impair access in the future and/or introduce inconveniences, I will pay a bit more for DRM-free content, or if the price is the same, I will choose DRM-free content over DRM content. For example, I buy e-books through Amazon, but if an e-book is available without DRM (e.g. from Webscriptions), I will buy from them instead.
When DRM for music went away, were you suddenly unable to buy music?
DRM did not go away because DRM technology was unavailable--it went away because music producers made a business decision that it was in their interest to offer music without DRM. Prior to that time, I was indeed unable to purchase a great deal of digital music for platforms that did not offer DRM.
The notion that unavailability of DRM will cause providers to suddenly come to their senses and offer their products DRM-free is absurd. Rather, they will continue to offer it through systems that support it. DRM will disappear as companies realize that it is costing far more in profits that it gains them, not because somebody imposes it upon them.
And by making DRM a standard, they're making a decision for me too. See how it works?
But they cannot require you to purchase DRM content. You still have a choice whether to buy it or not. But it sounds like you want to deny that choice to others.
I don't want to provide support for DRM in any shape or form. But it's not as easy as just not subscribing to Netflix, because this kind of standard will ensure that I will ultimately have to pay for it, in one way or another. By simply using a browser that supports it, because there's a standard for it, I will be counted as somebody who can play that kind of content, no matter how much I don't want to.
This is ridiculous sophistry. Being somebody who theoretically can play that kind of content does not put a cent in any provider's pocket. Their profits come from actual customers, not theoretical ones.
Here we disagree: I do want to own my movies. I want to be the one who decides, absolutely, what I watch, when I watch, where I watch, and on what terms I watch.
And you are always free to make that decision for yourself. But trying to prevent others from having access to DRM-protected content is making the decision for others.
Movies are not a necessity of life, so there's always a way to not buy into it. Don't like the terms? Read a book, instead. I think that DRM on video will ultimately die out, much as it has on music, as providers realize that users are willing to pay for convenience. I don't want to own any movies, I just want to be able to watch what I want, when I want, and I am willing to pay for the convenience of not owning and organizing my own video files. Eventually, producers will realize that they are just wasting money with this sysiphean pursuit of absolute control.
But obstructing the technology is not a way of hastening that transition.
For a while when I was in school, I would go to sleep right after dinner, get up a bit before midnight, Work until about 4 or 5 am, then sleep again until time to get up for class. It was incredibly productive and comfortable, but not exactly conducive to a social life
Slashdot Mirror
One of the less well-known Zelazny books: "Today We Choose Faces"
Mann was a pioneer in working out the statistics for this kind of study. It's no great surprise that he didn't get it perfect the first time. Ground-breaking work is rarely perfect. And considering that numerous subsequent studies have supported his conclusions, he clearly got it close enough to get the right answer. And while you may nitpick his descriptions of his methods in a space-constrained scientific paper, you'd have to show pretty strong evidence that he was actually trying to hide anything.
The choice of a threshold for statistical significance is dictated by the acceptable likelihood of a false positive or false negative result. Reducing the risk of false positives increases the risk of a false negative. The standard in many fields is less that a 1 in 20 risk of a false positive and less than 1 in 5 risk of false negative, but the actual choice is dependent upon the impact of a false positive or negative on the conclusions. I would not publish a paper (and likely would find it hard to get acceptance) where the conclusion was entirely dependent upon a single result that barely met the p less than 0.05 criterion
When somebody trots out the "sun is a major primary climate driver" line, you know that they've never read a lick of real climate science. Yes, climate scientists have noticed that big glowing ball in the sky, and the sun plays a major role in their analysis. As it happens, CO2 would have no effect on climate if the sun wasn't up there (the earth would be a frozen ball of ice, too, but never mind). Climate scientists checked and rechecked wither changes in solar radiation could account for the warming trend, and the evidence is overwhelming that there has not been no change in the sun's output sufficient to explain the observations.
The 6-sigma business basically applies to fields such as particle physics that pore through huge amounts of data looking for subtle statistical correlations. In this case, it is not possible to make the appropriate statistical corrections for multiple comparisons as scientists in other fields do, so they compensate by setting a very high criterion for statistical significance.
Sorry, but you've basically fallen for a deception. In reality, climate science is one of the most open fields of science in providing access to raw data, and there is (and has been for years) easily enough data available to check the conclusions of climate science. Indeed, one of the investigatory commissions formed after the "Climate Research Unit" email theft was able to independently obtain the data and replicate CRUs conclusions with no difficulty.
What really happened was this: CRU does acquire data and does not own any raw data. They analyzed data provided form National Weather Services, but they do not archive this data, did not have permission to distribute it, and had no reason to retain copies after they were done with it. Some climate "skeptics" demanded the data from CRU, and CRU told them that CRU did not have the data available to distribute, and that they should request the data from the owners, and refused to cooperate further. Filtered through the "climate science skeptic" propaganda machine, this became "Climate scientists are hiding (or in some versions, destroying) the data!!!" CRU was not wholly without fault in the matter (they could have been more cooperative without violating their scientific and ethical obligations toward the owners of the data). But it is entirely a myth that the data to check whether the world is warming is unavailable. It is available, and it has been checked and rechecked by multiple independent groups.
Actually, no. McIntyre proved that there was a technical flaw in Mann's method of statistical analysis that could occasionally cause an artifactual upturn (or, with equal probability, a downturn) at the end, but despite analyzing a large number of noise data sets, he was not able to find even one case that generated an upturn that approached the magnitude of Mann's "hockey stick" analysis. So, correctly interpreted, McIntyre's results proved that it was highly unlikely that Mann's Hockey Stick curve could result from the artifact. So it is not surprising that numerous subsequent studies, using analyses not subject to this error, and also looking at other types of climate data, have confirmed that the hockey stick is correct.
So in the end, McIntyre's technical criticism of Mann's approach (which at worst involved a subtlety of statistical analysis that no reasonable scientist would have called a "fraud") turned out to be correct, but irrelevant to Mann's conclusion.
You don't need a reason to do heroin. A mouse will do heroin. You need a reason not to do heroin.
This is probably the biggest problem with this approach. If the vaccine does not apply to the entire family of alkaloid opiates, then addicts would just switch to a different opiates. But if it does, then standard opiates would likely be ineffective unless injected directly into the central nervous system (e.g. by spinal injection).
On the other hand, it is hard to get good pain relief with opiates in addicts, anyway, because they are resistant. And abstinent addicts want to avoid opiate pain relievers because they can stimulate craving.
So if you're an addict, you already have a serious problem if you need major pain relief.
Endogenous opiates are peptides, not alkaloids, so it is extremely unlikely that antibodies directed against alkaloid opiates would bind to endogenous opiates. Also, antibodies do not readily enter the brain.
Unlikely. Endogenous opiates are chemically very different, and antibodies don't cross into the brain very readily, anyway.
Addicts do get off opiates and stay off for extended periods of time, although it is difficult and there is a constant risk of relapse. Withdrawal symptoms go away after a fairly short time, but the craving generally comes back from time to time, and can be triggered by "reminders" of drug use. So a vaccine that made it harder to "fall off the wagon" in response to an attack of craving would likely be helpful to abstinent addicts.
No, if this works like other vaccines being developed against addictive drugs, the antibodies would bind to the heroin molecule itself, leaving the receptors untouched. And since endogenous opiates are structurally very different, and since antibodies have limited access to the brain, it would not affect the action of endogenous opiates.
The one real drawback that I can think of is that if the vaccine immunized against all opiates, then it would be hard to get effective pain relief with opiates in somebody who has been vaccinated. Of course, it is hard to get effective pain relief in opiate addicts anyway, due to resistance, so this may not be as big a drawback as it seems. On the other hand, if it did not immunize against the entire family, then addicts probably would just switch to a different opiate.
It is unlikely that this kind of treatment would be compulsory, although if effective it might be offered as an alternative to incarceration to addicts found guilty of opiate-related crimes. And I think that there are many people who would choose it voluntarily to help them stay off of opiates.
And since you don't trust the majority to make what you perceive as the correct choice, you — like every tin-point dictator — want to see them deprived of choice. I think you are basically the same as the purveyors of DRM — trying to use technology to impose your will upon others. But with DRM, the ultimate choice remains with the user, who can choose whether or not to purchase DRM-protected products, and can decide what price they are willing to pay. You, on the other hand, want to impose crippleware that deprives them of choice.
I believe that the key difference between us is that I have more belief than you in the wisdom of the crowd. I think that DRM will ultimately die a natural death (as it already has for music) because a) it never provides perfect protection, b) it imposes costs on the user, which make them less willing to pay for DRM-protected products, and c) it imposes costs on the seller, for maintenance and upgrades.
I also believe that trying to technologically "lock out" DRM is ultimately doomed to failure, in the same way that the use of DRM to technologically "lock out" copying is doomed to failure, and for much the same reasons.
Actually, Apple initially offered music labels the option of offering music with DRM, or without DRM at a somewhat higher price than DRM-protected media. This was successful enough that more labels jumped on the DRM-free bandwagon, and Apple eventually was able to drop DRM altogether.
Actually, nobody knows whether there is effective treatment for autism in infants. Until autism can be reliably diagnosed in infants, there is no way to test whether any kind of early intervention will improve outcome.
No, diffusion tensor imaging is done with magnetism. No radiation is required and there is no risk of cancer or other fatal illness.
No, you remain free to make your own decision whether or not you will subject yourself to the restrictions of DRM-protected products. You are even free to attempt to persuade others to do likewise. If you are persuasive enough, then you and those who agree with you will constitute a market, and manufacturers will offer DRM-free products to make money from you (which is how music was freed from DRM).
But you don't want to persuade, you want to dictate. I am unimpressed by your contention that you should be able to take away my option to choose because, like every would-be dictator, you think that you are smarter than me.
This makes no sense. The existence of software on my computer capable of reading DRM-protected media--if and only if I choose to ask it to do so--does not give anybody else "control" of my computer. I still choose whether or not to buy DRM-protected media. If I don't agree with the restrictions on a piece of software or a type of media, then I don't use it. Are you seriously trying to argue that by denying me the ability to make that choice, you are protecting me from being forced?
So what? There are lots of things that are not available to me for purchase under the terms that I would prefer. I'd like to buy a Jaguar sports car for $19.95, but I can't. Does that mean that I am being "forced?"
Nobody can force DRM video on me, because movies are not a necessity of life, so nobody can require me to buy DRM video if I don't want to. I can make my own decision. I have no problem with people advocating to me that I not purchase DRM products. What I object to is people trying to take that choice away from me by obstructing DRM technology development.
Having access to DRM protected content means that the choice is mine whether to deal with companies that offer only DRM protected content. Personally, DRM is not a religious issue to me; I care about access and convenience. However, because DRM can potentially impair access in the future and/or introduce inconveniences, I will pay a bit more for DRM-free content, or if the price is the same, I will choose DRM-free content over DRM content. For example, I buy e-books through Amazon, but if an e-book is available without DRM (e.g. from Webscriptions), I will buy from them instead.
DRM did not go away because DRM technology was unavailable--it went away because music producers made a business decision that it was in their interest to offer music without DRM. Prior to that time, I was indeed unable to purchase a great deal of digital music for platforms that did not offer DRM.
The notion that unavailability of DRM will cause providers to suddenly come to their senses and offer their products DRM-free is absurd. Rather, they will continue to offer it through systems that support it. DRM will disappear as companies realize that it is costing far more in profits that it gains them, not because somebody imposes it upon them.
But they cannot require you to purchase DRM content. You still have a choice whether to buy it or not. But it sounds like you want to deny that choice to others.
This is ridiculous sophistry. Being somebody who theoretically can play that kind of content does not put a cent in any provider's pocket. Their profits come from actual customers, not theoretical ones.
And you are always free to make that decision for yourself. But trying to prevent others from having access to DRM-protected content is making the decision for others.
Movies are not a necessity of life, so there's always a way to not buy into it. Don't like the terms? Read a book, instead.
I think that DRM on video will ultimately die out, much as it has on music, as providers realize that users are willing to pay for convenience. I don't want to own any movies, I just want to be able to watch what I want, when I want, and I am willing to pay for the convenience of not owning and organizing my own video files. Eventually, producers will realize that they are just wasting money with this sysiphean pursuit of absolute control.
But obstructing the technology is not a way of hastening that transition.
My theory is that the reason why we are almost all caffeine addicts is that we don't take our siesta.
For a while when I was in school, I would go to sleep right after dinner, get up a bit before midnight, Work until about 4 or 5 am, then sleep again until time to get up for class. It was incredibly productive and comfortable, but not exactly conducive to a social life