If that it true (I don't have current ownership figures so I can't say) then things have changed a lot since the big Eisner Disney showdown, because those sure weren't the figures at that point.
Ah yes, I can tell you must be a genius from your calm, well-reasoned, insightful analysys of the situation.
Besides, it is always evident when you are dealing with a highly intelligent individual, not swayed by fads or expectations, because they always attach their ego to the same brand as all the other brilliant free-thinking individualists.
I wish I was smart and independent enough to be a member of the brilliant creative loners club, so I could get the newsletter making sure I got all the right talking points. As it is I'm so stupid I have to do all my thinking for myself.
Oh well, it's lonely in this basment. I guess I'll just have to go back to making a friend to watch TV with out of all these fast food wrappers.
1 a : the state of being plural b : the state of being numerous c : a large number or quantity 2 : PLURALISM 1; also : a benefice held by pluralism 3 a : a number greater than another b : an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate c : a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast
Nope, unless you are going to take the incredibly pedantic position that 5% is a greater number than 3%, then it really isn't a plurality. I mean, technically, I suppose you could say that anyone with 2 shares has a plurality of shares, but then I really don't understand the sentence "and Steve Jobs (who turns up once again) is the plurality shareholder " since under that definition anyone with around $50 can be a "plurality shareholder."
No, I believe than in the context of that statement plurality, usually would mean something more like 3b or even more so 3c. You would have a very hard time arguing that 5%, or even 7% would ever be greater than the number cast for any other candidate. As I read the post, the author is clearly trying to imply that Jobs would have the largest number of shares, and thus the largest number of controlling votes. This is simply not the case. Jobs has more shares than any single person, but not more than any single voting entity. Jobs does not have the biggest vote on the board, or necessarily even a deciding vote on the board. In some situations 5% could sway things one way or another if the vote were really tight, but for the most part, the lage entities that control percentages in the respectable double digits won't even have to pay attention to a guy who controls 5% of the vote unless they want to. That hardly makes it a plurality.
I have seen anywhere between $6.3 to $7.5 Billion for this deal. It is not finalized yet, so it is hard to say, but remeber Steve Jobs only owns half of Pixar, not the whole thing. That said, the terms of the deal I have seen are pretty consistant that every Pixar shareholder will get 2.3 shares of Disney. Now I don't know the total of issued Disney shares, or the total of Pixar shares, so it is hard to say the exact percentage, but I from what I hear it is a lot closer to 5% than 7%.
OK, I know this is hard for Mac people to hear, but 3-5% is not a plurality! I know every Jobs fan wants to spin this as Steve Jobs now owns Disney, but he in fact has about twice as much stock as Eisner, and man with so much pull at Disney, they fired him! Jobs owns more stock than any other individual presently does (members of the Disney family used to own more, but they sold them during the Eisner years). That does not mean Jobs is the largest shareholder, just that he owns the most stock of any one person. There are several large financial institutions, mutual funds, and holding companies that own far more stock than Jobs.
The thing that is wrong about all these Machead wet dreams where this is "following the Apple/NeXT pattern" is that Apple was a small, struggling, company buying out an even smaller, more struggling company. No one on earth except Jobs and his fan club gave a damn about what happened to either company. Besides, years before the Apple/NeXT merger, the Jobs faithful had already been screaming that management should bring Jobs back. This deal with Disney is a very different deal. Some of the largest financial institutions on earth care very much what happens to Disney, and have quite a bit invested in the company. This isn't the CEO of the month club like Apple was when Jobs came back. This is a big company with fairly competant management, who fought long and hard to get where they are now.
The real story here is that John Lasseter (a creative person) is at the helm at Disney. It has been a very long time since the creatives have had control at Disney. Personally, I think it is a lot more likely that Lasseter will be the next CEO if Disney. Jobs, he just has a few more billion to convince you people he doesn't care about.
Those cars are very nice, but none of them are really practical for everyday use. It's pretty hard to put in a 300lb. toolbox inside a BMW.
and then use that as proof for why the Dodge Ram is the best performance car.
Yes, I am well aware of the fact that if you start adding condition, on top of condition, on top of condition, you can eventually construct a scenario where there is only one choice that makes sense. That doesn't make your ultimate argument a proof of much of anything though. For example, it isn't hard at all to fit a child seat in a Rolls Royce, is it?
All you are really saying is that for cars under $200K but over $30k, that can be used for suburban errands, have a fair amount of acceleration, and are made in Germany, The BMW rates pretty high. Well fine, but I don't really see how that very limited example is particularly at odds with what I said to begin with. As I said before, the BMW is just a middle of the road car that they sell to a certain type of person who likes being told that they are paying for the "ultimate driving experience." You yourself admit that the car might not be exemplary in any way, but just that it makes the people who buy them feel good. This is true of every single upscale brand in every market. A pair of $250 Designer jeans aren't really made out of any better fabric, or constructed to last longer, or even necessarily more attractive than a $40 pair of Levis, but they make the purchaser feel superior to your average K-Mart shopper, and thus they say they are better. That doesn't actually make them better, it just makes the person who bought them more susceptible to marketing than your average consumer. This is the same thing.
I don't argue with your assessment at all. Certainly there are companies like Sony and Apple that target one end of the computer market, while companies like Dell and Gateway go after a different market. I am just amazed that in all the times I have heard this argument, it has never once been any car company other than BMW. It is, in my mind, beyond coincidence that with all the car companies to choose from, BMW is always the one that gets brought up.
Sorry for mistaking you for a machead if you aren't. But when you have heard countless macheads make the exact same argument, down to the very same brand of car, it is hard not to assume the person making the argument is one.
Really, BMW attracts driving enthusiasts? Here in L.A. (where there are one or two BMWs on the road) it really seems like BMWs attract donught shop owners, nightclub managers, accountants, and girls who like buying cars on their boyfriend's credit cards. It seems like most of the driving enthusiasts prefer Porsches, Lamborghinis, Aston Martins, Lotuses, Corvettes, Nissan Zs and Vipers.
I see a lot more BMWs at the grocery store and preschool than I do slamming down PCH at thrilling speeds.
American or not, I've owned 4 VWs, and two BMWs. I am quite familiar with both brands, and can tell you that the build quality of a modern VW and the build quality of a modern BMW are about on par. Hell, the last time I was looking at cars, there were Mazdas that had better build quality than some of the BMWs! As far as which car will last you longer, it is passing premature to talk about how long a 2006 is going to last, as there is absolutely nothing but manufacturer promises on which to base that claim. Personally, I think the proof of the longevity of a car is on the road, not in the promises of a dealer in a showroom.
On the road, you will see a lot fewer 20 year-old BMWs than you will 20 year-old Mercedes or VWs.
My point, however, is that within a given price range, you can find cars by Audi, Jaguar, Mercedes, Lexus, Cadillac, Acura, Infinity, or even a high-end Dodge. Why is it that every single time this "Apple is like a luxury car" analogy is trotted out, it is always BMW? There is no argument (outside of a BMW dealership) that BMW is far from making the best, most luxurious, most appointed cars in the world. That honor would have to go to Rolls Royce, Bentley, or Maybach. BMW doesn't make the highest performance cars, that would have to go to Lamborghini, Ferrari, or an exotic manufacturer like McLaren. No, all BMW represents is an adequately built car, in a price range attainable by your average middle class manager willing to take on some extra debt. As such, its perceived value gets inflated because the people who can afford it want to believe they are buying "the best money can buy," when they in fact know the best will never be within their reach. There is nothing intrinsically better about a BMW over a Lexus, Audi, or any of those other cars. It just appeals to a certain kind of person who like being told by the salesman that they are paying for the "ultimate driving experience." In that way, I suppose it makes perfect sense why Mac people are so drawn to the brand, since they don't care how their computer actually performs, they just like being told they are getting the "ultimate user experience."
What is it with Macheads and BMWs? I have seen this analogy for 20 years now, and it is ALWAYS BMW.
The thing that cracks me up, is I don't even know what it means! BMWs aren't luxury cars, and aren't even particularly good cars. Bentley, Rolls Royce, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maybach even Mercedes, now those are luxury cars. BMW is the Ford Escort for every middle manager, real estate agent, sorority girl, and soccer mom the world over. The brand has about the same prestige as Cadillac, and the build quality of a Volkswagen.
I mean, I suppose it does have a certain relevance to Apple, in that it is a brand that Macheads put up on a pedestal for no apparent reason. I suppose it also has some correlation because it is a brand that middle class Americans like to associate with the upper class, while still being in their price range. Maybe they always get lumped together because the only person saying that either of the products are the best in the world, is the guy selling it to you? However, I don't think any of these were the association you were going for.
What kills me though is that without fail it is always BMW. I have never once heard this argument stated with Jaguar, or Lotus, or Infinity, or Porsche, or Rolls Royce. Is this in some sort of secret "how to make yourself feel superior by buying a Mac" playbook they issue you guys?
The point is Mercedes makes "luxury" cars too, and it is the largest auto company in the world. Jaguar, Lexus, Porsche Acura, and Lotus all make "luxury" cars and they are just divisions of huge auto makers that make those plain old stinky cars for those icky unwashed masses who buy cars to get around, instead of to impress their neighbors. Don't let a flawed analogy fool you into thinking that market share and quality are somehow exclusive of each other.
Oh yeah, so let me get this straight, in your world Dell, Apple, Sun, and HP all have keys to your server room and the codes to your alarm system, and logons to your network, so they can all get into your building in the middle of the night without your staff having to get out of bed? I hate to break it to you, if you have a catastrophic failure at 2:00AM requiring immediate hardware replacement, one of your employees is going to have to get out of bed in the middle of the night, no matter where you buy your hardware.
I mean, by your logic, why have a data center at all? Why not just outsource the entire thing to some other company? Oh, right, because some companies actually like to keep their proprietary information confidential, instead of just storing it in their Gmail account!
I'm sorry, your entire response is nothing but a huge rationalization founded on an incredibly false dichotomy in which these vendors are all staffed entirely by brilliant engineers who have nothing but your company's best interests at heart, while your company's only hiring options are incompetent boobs who have nothing but their self-interest at heart. The reality of the situation is that you can hire from the exact same pool Dell, or Apple, or Sun do, and if they work for you, then their interest is in getting it right. If they work for the vendor, their interest is in nothing more than the commission. Also, it is great to say that hardware is an insignificant cost compared to HR and office space, but I know plenty of company VPs who would tend to disagree, what with having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their data center hardware that they stuck in a cheap office park, and staffed with a few $50k employees.
I don't know where you live, but there really isn't a shortage of people who can work with these computer things. I suspect that you are just easily dazzled by the show these vendors put on of having a team of "experts" to help you "design your architecture." Your entire post reads like a Dell sales brochure. The reality of the situation is that most of these "Experts" are just salespeople reading off a script, and pushing the parts they've been told to push. Believe me, I used to work at a pretty large vendor, and I have seen it in action.
The problem is that in a few years, when you need to "grow your system" Dell, or Apple, or any of them, could give a crap less about anything but getting you to reinvest in a whole new set of hardware all over again. That is, by the way, how they make their money you know. I mean seriously, look at one of these quotes and think for a second. The services fees they charge for their 24/7 support are almost enough to buy the hardware in and of themselves! Sure, I suppose that sounds like a good enough deal if you are buying 5 systems, and want to get away with not having any IT staff in your office at all, but when you start talking about real purchasing in the hundreds of systems, that cost starts mounting. Besides, if you really think you can maintain a datacenter with hundreds of machines without a staff of in-house people who actually know what they are doing, then you are just plain insane.
You are overlooking one major factor here. Apple, Dell, HP, whoever, are just using off the shelf parts that anyone can buy, yet are charging quite a premium for all that support. I just recently did a cost analysis for a real estate company looking for a large storage solution. I got quotes from all the vendors, I even got a second round of counter quotes from all the vendors. In the end, the lowest quote was still so high, that you could build the boxes, and still have enough money to buy a complete second set of disks!
I'm sorry, your support argument sounds good, but it just falls apart when you think about it for five seconds. Sure, Dell or Sun will promise you no more than a 4 hour downtime, and that sounds pretty good. However, what I had this client do, was take all the money he would have given to Dell, build the servers he needed, and then fill a closet with identical servers. Now if a disk or even entire server goes down, he just walks over to the closet, pulls out a replacement, and is back up in minutes! He paid exactly the same amount he would have for the lowest quote, got the same or better hardware he would have received from a tier-1 vendor, and got twice as much of it, so that he has enough replacement parts to last him years. You don't need an expensive support contract if you already have a replacement on hand.
You do know that atheism is not actually a synonym for secular, don't you? There are plenty of people who believe that the matters of man are the matters of man, and the matters of religion are separate from that; yet still believe in some sort of spiritual existence, be it God, or Buda or whatever.
I get so tired of people like you who see the word "secular" and automatically assume "look, godless heathens!"
Also, the lack of a belief in god is not the same thing as a belief in the lack of a god. It is only myopic religious provincialism which boils things down to the childish level where you either believe in the One True God, or you are some kind of damned atheist! The fact of the matter is, even IF you honestly believe in some sort of supernatural being guiding all events in the world, there is still a big question as to WHICH of these gods you should believe in. Then there is the question of whether there is one, or a pantheon of them, who their chosen people are, was Jesus a profit, or a Buda, or the son of God, what foods you are and aren't allowed to eat on which days, who did and didn't get resurrected when... it goes on for quite a while. Only someone who was indoctrinated young, and never once even thought to question their belief could possibly think it was as simple as you either believe in god or you don't.
If you want to know why you might get dismissed by that whopping 10% of the country who says they aren't religious, that last point might have more to do with it than you think. You see, those of us who weren't raised in a particular religious tradition, still have to wrestle with the same moral questions you religious people do, and most of us go out and try to find some answers. While you are flipping through your bible looking for what King James approved as the proper answers, we are finding out what the Greeks thought on the subject, what Hindis think about it, what the Shinto view is, what Druidic tradition says, and yes, even what they say in the Bible. While you are asking your priest the church thinks a particular passage means, we are researching the Thomas Gospel and the Rabbinical interpretations of the Torah.
You see, you are absolutely right that no one should call your judgment into question simply because of your faith. However, calling someone's judgment into question because they are basing their every moral decision, and possibly even their eternal state of being, on a single book out of thousands of other books out there claiming to cover the exact same ground, IS a good reason to call their judgment into question! I mean, your belief says that roughly 67% of the people on Earth have it wrong, and are all doomed to an eternity of damnation. That is a pretty big claim, and when the reasoning behind that is "it says it right here in the book," there is a pretty strong justification for calling your judgment into question. I know you don't see it this way, but some of us have never once in our entire life settled for "God said so" as an answer to any question. So, there is an immediate suspicion of the critical thinking ability of those for whom that is all the answer they need.
Well, I am not as familliar with other countries as I am with America, but in America privacy has nothing to do with the right of free speech. privacy has a lot more to do with the idea that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think it is so funny when I hear people likle you talk about privacy as some fanciful luxury that we are silly to think we are owed. What we are owed, at least in this country, is the ownership of our property, and information is (in case you haven't heard) property. You can buy it, you can sell it, and you can even go to jail for stealing it. In fact, that little quote from the constitution about even explicitly protects it. After all, they aren't making a point of protecting the actual pieces of paper, they are protecting the information on the paper.
The problem with the modern state of "privacy laws" is that they do exactly what you are doing here, which is try to set up privacy as some special luxury, which they then say isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. It is a dodge specifically designed to make it seem like personal information is not property. Meanwhile, in the corporate sector, every year we have more and more laws aimed at protecting information as a tangible good, a commodity, property. The effect is to set up a de facto double standard, where actual people are second class citizens not allowed to own intellectual property, while corporations are the first class citizens allowed to use the full power of the law to protect their ownership of intellectual property.
Information is either property, or it isn't. If you can buy and sell the ideas in a novel, and you can face legal action for stealing the ideas in a novel, then it is obviously property. If the ideas in a novel are property, then what you and your wife are saying to eachother in email is just as much property, and so should be protected by the fourth amendment just like any other property.
Oh, I had really hoped that the one upside of the bubble bursting would be that people would finally see the leveraged synergistics of empowered, paradigm-shifting, buzzword groupthink, as the load of con-man fast talk it really is. My rectum gets all in a bunch at the very concept that these out-of-the-box, emergent asshats will be once again squaring off for the mindshare of our collective intelligence, so that they can capture eyeballs to secure a solid ROI in their VC funding!
You know, you would think that after losing tons of money in the last dotcom bust, people would figure out that if you have to make up words to describe your idea, it probably isn't a very good one. It is funny to me how the most successful businesses out of the last buzzword feeding frenzy had descriptions like "You use it to find information" or "it is an auction, on the computer" or "you pay to see nude women, on the computer" or "you buy things, and they are shipped to you."
But no, now we have Web 2.0, and all the English mangling, linguistically garbage spewing, criminal bottom feeders who missed out on their last chance to bilk investors out of millions of dollars, will have another shot at it! And all the rest of us will have to hear all over again how we just "don't get it" because we lack the vision to see the future. Oh joy!
First off, I want to say that the type of answers you gave are exactly the sort of reason I became interested in the psychology of faith in human-driven global warming. I am not saying that as a way to discredit what you say, and I will address every single one of your points in turn. Perhaps you will see then what I mean, but the short version is that you automatically think that if there is doubt introduced, then it is best to err on the side of your theory, not in doubt of your theory. That is the reaction of a true believer, not the reaction of a skeptic. The skeptical approach is to assume that the burden of proof lies on the person purporting the theory, not on the person calling it into question. By the way this is very long, and I'm tired. Please forgive any stupid typos, or any rambling responses.
Well, hang on. I think that's a mischaracterization of the NRC's stance. The models generally suggest a warming trend at the surface level and troposphere, and a cooling trend in the stratosphere. What that set of observations found was that while the other two matched up, on the surface, there were discrepancies with the tropospheric temperatures. NRC pointed out a few things...
The first, of course, was that our surface-level data provide a picture of temperatures across the globe at large number of sites over the past 125 years. This data set shows an unambiguous warming trend. Our sample size for the upper atmosphere relies on a much smaller set of samples, and observations over, at the time, about a sixth as long as the surface data. This wasn't a dismissal of the satellite data, just a note that the satellite data did not show that no warming was occurring, and that potentially some of the difference was due to uncertainties in measurement.
The biggest thing I want to point out here is that you said, in your own words, "potentially some of the difference was due to uncertainties in measurement." I will come back to this later, because I think it is important. As far as mischaracterizing the position of the NRC goes, my characterization is that there were a set of data points that did not track with the model, and they said that those data points couldn't be trusted, because they didn't track with the model, so shouldn't be considered. You can throw more words at it if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the data didn't track, and they discounted the data. The problem here is that the model says that if factors are such, then the results should be such. In any logical argument, if you can call any part of the conclusion into question, then that calls the reasoning that led you to that conclusion into question. You might not see it that way, but that is how it is.
The second was that the satellite data, when you account for aerosols and Mt. Pinatubo, matches the model data pretty well. So... they really don't show the models to be inaccurate-- the models did a very good job of predicting surface and stratospheric temperatures, and a pretty good job of predicting tropospheric temperatures, ceteris paribus.
Ok, seriously, you can't have it both ways. You can't first explain why the data is erroneous, then turn right around and say "but it proves me right anyway." If your first argument is true, then the data can't prove anything, because it lacks the accuracy to have any validity to the argument. That said, do you mean to say that before 2000, none of the models took aerosols into account? I specifically mentioned satellite data from 2000, and a review of that data by the NRC (who you normally seem to think very highly of), and according to the NRC at the time, the data didn't track with the models. Are you saying that the NRC just forgot to take aerosols into account when they reviewed the data?
The third thing, though, was that they did acknowledge that their understanding wasn't perfect-- that one of two things was wrong:
I would have to say that Planetes has to be the best space show ever made! It is the kind of actuall science fiction that Hollywood has never had the brains and guts to even try.
Mighty Space Miners is another show in the same mold, but it didn't ever get off the ground.
No, no, no, you completely misunderstand. I wasn't trying to put any words in your mouth at all. I was just honestly surprised that when asked for an example of a simulation you found to be accurate, that you chose to uses that one. I just didn't expect that. I was seriously just trying to figure out why you chose that?
My point was just to try and get a feel for what you consider accurate. I now can calibrate how I take your comments about the accuracy of a model. Your primary determining factor for accuracy, appears to be how well it tracks with temperature data. There is clearly no way to argue that GISS Model II is accurately modeling changes in currents and jet streams, or perturbations in the upper atmosphere, or even the effect of land surface atmospheric interference. You are arguing pretty squarely that the results fit the temperature data, so all the rest of that stuff is obviously pretty irrelevant, since on the measure you are concerned with, you got the results that fit the data.
I am not saying that is an inherently invalid way to judge accuracy or anything. It just is not the definition of accurate I would have gone with. When you are talking about how a small number of factors drive a complex system, you run a serious risk of coming up with seemingly useful results for an oversimplification of the problem. I think this model could very well be a prime example of that. It leaves a lot of factors out. To say that the temperature result was correct, so obviously the left out factors are unimportant is, is bad reasoning.
A simple example of this would be, if I run a simple Runge-Kutta rigid body simulation on a sphere falling, and I test it against a falling ball with the same physical properties in a lab, it will appear to be a very accurate simulation. If I then try to test the simulation against a penny falling off a building, the simulation will either be reasonably accurate, or totally useless, depending on how many of the unconsidered factors come into play. Most likely, it will be totally useless, but there will be cases in experimentation where unconsidered factors happen to cancel each other out, and the result looks far more accurate than it really is. If I then try to use it to predict how a feather will fall, it will be truely worthless, because the driving factors of the simulation, and the driving factors of the actual event are are not the same.
One that I found impressive was Hansen's GISS Model II,
Are you serious? There have been huge advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics over the past 20 years, and you choose a model from the '80s as your best example of an accurate simulation? There are some quite significant things that had not been worked out yet in CFD back when that model was made. I don't know if you are pulling my leg, testing me, or just plain serious about picking that as what you think is one of the more accurate models?
Please show me what I've taken out of context and explain how it should be considered differently.
You have repeatedly ignored the meat of my argument, to instead nibble around the edges. For example you say:
See... you did say something to provoke that response-- allow me to explain it, since it obviously wasn't clear the first time. Climatology is like geology, evolutionary biology, et cetera, in that it is a science based on observation-- but one that by its very nature precludes direct experimentation. Instead, it relies on statistical methods to determine the relationships between different factors, modeling to predict future trends, and further observation to verify postulated relationships and the accuracy of models.
completely ignoring that I clearly drew the distinction, as I saw it, between these disciplines when I said:
There are two kinds of people in any scientific debate, the people who claim to know exactly how things work, and the reputable scientists. You get to choose to be one or the other, but you can never be both. A reputable scientist gathers as much information as possible, and then tries to guess at what it might mean. They come up with a theory, and then they attempt to disprove the theory. If they cannot disprove the theory, then they accept it as a good guess until more information is gathered...
And:
... and evolution doesn't predict what adaptations will occur in response to a given environment, it just attempts to explain how the adaptations that are already there came about. See, all of those sciences are attempting to look back at billions of years of evidence, and understand how things occurred in the past. That is pretty much nothing like looking at 200 years of data, and trying to predict how things will be going forward.
Yet you go right forward with pretending like I never said those things, like I drew no distinction, like I just said what you wanted me to say, which was that all observational sciences are bunk. The meat of the argument you are avoiding is that unlike the other sciences you mention, climatologists are incredibly, and I would argue intentionally, myopic in how they look at the data. Their models get more and more vague the further in the past you get from the industrial revolution. Their data is decidedly focused on an accurate accounting of one particular part of the equation (human-produced greenhouse gasses), and are pretty forgiving of errors in any other factor. They are also primarily concerned with attempting to predict the future, to the point that it is of little or no concern to them that their models cannot account for the many warm periods our planet experienced long before there could have possibly been any influence by man. If you insist on attempting to constantly try an equate climatology to evolution, I am forced to point out that it is a lot more like eugenics, or evolutional psychology, than evolution.
By the way, I know you will hate to hear this, but the fact of the matter is that even your venerable evolution is anything but a settled issue. No, I'm not talking about the intelligent design crap! I'm talking about the new genetic data that is forcing biologists to, in an odd way, reexamine the old Darwinian vs. Lamarckian arguments. It turns out that some of the genetic code replications and transference can't be explained by a straight Darwinian model. So, if you make a habit of trotting out evolution as your number one example of an area of science where there is also absolutely no debate, you might want to start looking for a new poster-child case.
Please show me where you think I've "gotten into trouble."
Your entire initial argument was that there is no debate on global warming,
Ok, if you want to argue actual methodology, instead of just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus, then I'm game for that. Here are just a few. These are all criticisms I have heard from either physicists, biologists, environmentalist, historians, botanists, or geologists. I will fully admit, that they pretty much all fall under the basic category of "climatologists don't have enough respect for my field of study," but that doesn't make them automatically invalid.
As recently as 2000, satellite data has shown that the lower and middle troposphere have had negligible, if any increase in temperature, even though most of the models climatologists have been using claim that we should be seeing rises in the troposphere that correspond to the surface level warming trends. The National Research Council's response to this was to decide that as a matter of policy, satellite data should not be used as an argument against global warming. Now, how is that not an example of cherry picking data? You have a model, you have a prediction, you have instruments capable of checking the validity of the model, and when they show the model to be inaccurate, you throw out the previously respected data, as erroneous.
Another example, is that the climatologist model does not address changes in cosmic radiation and solar winds, even though there are several physicists who maintain that there demonstrable and measurable effects on cloud cover and temperature as a result of cosmic radiation. Climatologists summarily dismiss this theory as having no significant relevance, because their models as they stand now explain everything, without taking those factors into account, so they must be insignificant factors. Climatologists then further try to discredit the theory by applying statistical analysis to the problem, and claiming that the seeming correlation is just a smoothing error by the physicists, resulting from poor statistical analysis. Here is the problem, it is not just a statistical argument. There are underlying physical principals at work that massaging the statistical data does not invalidate. Creating a model of how our planet traps cosmic radiation, while simultaneously ignoring changes in the radiation levels hitting the planet, is just bad methodology.
Many examinations of the previously accepted historical records, would strongly suggest that the current trend in global warming started in the 17th century, long before industrialization could have contributed to this trend. If this is true, it becomes extremely hard to factor in how much of the change is being caused by environmental pollution, and how much is part of a natural cycle. Further more, it calls into question the veracity of several models that have found man-made sources of greenhouse gasses to be the primary cause of global warming. The climatologist response has been, predictably, to throw out any historical records that suggest a pre-industrial start to the trend, as being inaccurate, and erroneous.
It was only in '99 that climatologists even started taking methane seriously as having any significant possible effect on the temperature of the planet, even though geologists think that it was mainly methane that was responsible for higher-than-current temperatures in the Cenozoic era. Once again, not too surprisingly, climatologists found that even though they had not factored this gas, it really didn't make a difference to their predictions.
The models, as a whole, tend to have a very high fudge factor when dealing with real-world natural events like large scale forest fires, volcanoes, and how events like El Niño effect the ability to accurately assess a trend over the past 20 years. For example, climatologists made no changes in their models after the historic Mexican wildfires in '98. These fires had to have had a significant effect on the environment, since they were some of the largest in recorded history, burning over one million acres and causing dangerous air quality issues in more than six nations. Yet, they are jus
Ah, I see. So your position is that there has been a perfect consensus among the entire scientific community for some time, but don't listen to those environmentalists, because they are a bunch of loons, and don't listen to geologists, because they don't really know what they are talking about, and don't listen to environmental chemists, because they aren't studying the problem properly, and don't listen to physicists, because they aren't part of the right club. None the less, there isn't a single scientist who disagrees with these findings, outside of a few kooks.
Ok, so climatologists are the only scientists in the world, their grasp of how the ecosystem works is inarguably perfect, and they have nothing to learn from any other branch of science, because those people don't know what they are talking about anyway. All that is important is that the climatologists all agree. Of course, anyone who doesn't realize that is an ignorant fool, who has no right to talk about science. Well, I can certainly see why you find it so hard to believe anyone would not see the inherent truth of you position. You remind me a lot of supporters of Objectivism. You pick your position, then start your "examination of the facts" by first disqualifying large amounts of data as being either spurious, dubious, or irrelevant, then oh what a surprise the result you find is exactly the result you were looking for to start with.
You even argue the same way. Rather than reading what is on the page as a whole, you pick little snippets out of context, based on how well you can use them to make the person you are arguing with fit your preconceptions of what an unbeliever must be. When you get into trouble, of course, you fall right back to the same appeal to authority, over and over, and over again.
You see, here is my problem. Whether you believe it or not, I'm actually an uncommonly smart guy, who spends most of his time doing nothing but thinking about the world, then going and hunting down other really smart people at universities and such. I ask them questions, to learn more about things, and I read whatever they point me to. I study just about every discipline, from economics to philosophy, physics to biology. This keeps me from being an expert at any of these disciplines, but I've never really had a hard time finding people accomplished in the field, who can explain to me what they are doing, and work through their theories, and explain to me how it works, and why they think it works that way. That is, except climatologists. Any time I try to follow up on this line of inquiry, all I find, are people like you. People who don't claim to be particularly accomplished in the field, people who don't even claim to have their own theories, but rather people who say over and over "well, a bunch of really smart people got together somewhere else, and they came up with this report. Since they are so much smarter than you or me, we just have to trust that they know what they are talking about, because they are all really smart, and they all agree." It is funny, but there aren't many other sciences that work that way. When I ask a physicist a question, he can usually tell me who is working specifically on the type of research that is relevant to my line of inquiry, and who I need to talk to to get a better handle on what the current theory is. I can't remember ever once having a geologist direct me to an organization, or governing body to answer a question. It is always something more along the lines of "oh yeah, Bob Smith is the guy you want to talk to about that. He is doing the most exciting work in the field on that." The closest analog I can find to how climatology works, is the field of medicine, or the political sciences.
I suppose being able to just ramble around talking to people like this is one of the advantages of being an artist, and not having to go to a job every day. One of the many things I have learned from this interdisciplinary search for knowledge, is that an awful lot of otherwise really smart scientists
I have to say, that this is one of the most honest, intelligent points I've seen in this entire debate!
You see, I don't personally believe that the current global trend to warmer weather is being caused by man, nor do I know if this trend will continue, for any great amount of time. I have heard just as much argument over the years suggesting that in the slightly longer term, it might even be an ice age we are heading into.
What I do know, is that at least at the moment, temperatures are going up, fossil fuel dependency is causing major economic and social problems, and smog is a major problem in every city in America, and most major cities in the rest of the world. I agree that what we should be focusing on is how to make our lives more sustainable, and thus more pleasant. I think there should be a lot less talk about what is causing this or that, and a lot more talk about what we, as individuals, can do to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. That would certainly have the effect of cutting down on pollutants, just as the global warming proponents want, and whether or not there is any connection between the use of fossil fuels or not, it would make life better for everyone involved.
I would suggest, however, that there is a fair amount of FUD coming from both sides of the argument, not just one side. I think that a lot of good initiatives have died a horrible death because people on both sides are so caught up in their vilification of the other side, that there can't be a rational discussion about how to make our lives better.
I think that a lot of what your average environmentalist says they want to accomplish, could easily be put into terms that most people, and even a fair amount of businesses would agree with. Unfortunately, instead of even trying to make arguments about better quality of living, health benefits, cost savings, the long-term stability of domestically available renewable energy sources, and so forth, the argument quickly devolves into
"Your killing the planet, you greedy fat cat!" "No we aren't you communist hippy!"
I think that for better or worse, the movement towards sustainable, renewable, and clean energy is going to be a very slow process, until the anti-corporate rhetoric can be removed as an integral part of any discussion about the topic. By the same token, people have to have it made clear to them that the choice is theirs.
A quick example of what I mean: I live in LA, and I hear a lot about how the greedy corporate types are killing the planet, yet I am the only person I know in the entire city of LA who doesn't own a car. Yes, I have heard the argument that it is the big corporations that are creating 90% of the pollution, so what car you drive doesn't really matter. However, you can't ask others to do something you aren't willing to do yourself. If you aren't willing to give up your car for what you believe in, then why should a company change the way they do business just because you tell them it is bad? I don't even believe that we are killing the planet, and I can still see the sense of not driving up to the convenience store when I could walk, or taking a $3 train ride instead of paying $3 a gallon for gas!
When it comes down to it, we need companies to provide products and services that are less dependent on fossil fuels. Running around talking about how evil corporations are, and how excessive American are, the whole while consuming fossil fuels yourself, is not the solution. Creating a market for alternatives, and voting with your wallet is the quickest way to get a company to change its focus. If tomorrow 15% of America got rid of their gas-burning cars, and either started taking public transportation, or buying alternate energy vehicles, companies would be climbing all over themselves to figure out how to cash in on this new green craze! They wouldn't care why you were doing it, they wouldn't care what you thought about the environment, those would all be things for their marketing department to worry about. They would
Oh what I wouldn't give for a few more godless scientists! That is exactly what we don't have enough of.
How I long for the days of skeptical scientists who didn't trust anything but what they could observe, and replicate. Unfortunately, ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more and more scientists have been worshiping at the altar of science itself as the new religion, with mathematical models as the new infallible demigod that trumps all observable evidence.
Far too many scientists, and even a larger number of their science enamored acolytes, have become convinced that math is a magic window into the soul of the universe. A perfect cabalistic language that can tell no lies, and which is by its very nature able to conjure up the true essence of all things. Far too much skepticism has been lost, and more and more experiential evidence is being discarded as anecdotal, if it does not agree with the writ of math, the one true perfect language.
Sure, when pressed to the wall, all scientists will spout by rote the now almost meaningless tenants of science being innately skeptical, and all about testing and attempting to disprove theories. Yet, far too many, in their unguarded moments, will blithely throw around phrases like "impossible," "we know" and "it's just a fact." In many circles skepticism has become a mere formality, or something you trot out of the closet when attacking someone else's beliefs, but never something that is applied to one's own theories.
No, we have far too many true believers in science. If there are any godless scientists still out there, I beg them to never repent!
Oh, and I don't know where you live, but most of the places I've lived in my life, you would be just as well served assuming the exact opposite of whatever the weatherman said. Sure, here in LA, you are pretty safe saying "warm and sunny," but when I lived in Texas, the old guy at the convenience store had just about the same accuracy as all the Doppler radar in the state:-)
Ah, so geology, plate tectonics, evolution , et cetera are all bunk. Each is characterized by relying on direct observations dating back about 200 years or less-- all other data is extrapolated. We can't KNOW that earthquakes are caused by movements of the plates that compose the Earth's crust, because we've only been observing the correlation for a short time. Darn, better not put in that tsunami warning system.
Well, I never said a single thing you attribute to me in that little snippet, nor anything like it. However, since you seem confused by what I did say, let me rephrase it so that you might understand. There are two kinds of people in any scientific debate, the people who claim to know exactly how things work, and the reputable scientists. You get to choose to be one or the other, but you can never be both. A reputable scientist gathers as much information as possible, and then tries to guess at what it might mean. They come up with a theory, and then they attempt to disprove the theory. If they cannot disprove the theory, then they accept it as a good guess until more information is gathered, and the theory can either be refined or disproved. If there is no way to test the theory, then no amount of consensus would make a reputable scientist say "well we can't test it, but we all agree this must be what is happening."
That said, I'll accommodate you, and reply to the words you tried to put in my mouth. See, geologists don't say "we know how a mountain forms, so we can tell you when the next mountain will be popping up." The theory of plate tectonics explains why there are earthquakes, but so far their attempts to anticipate earthquakes have been just about as successful as watching dogs to see how they react to earthquakes. And evolution doesn't predict what adaptations will occur in response to a given environment, it just attempts to explain how the adaptations that are already there came about. See, all of those sciences are attempting to look back at billions of years of evidence, and understand how things occurred in the past. That is pretty much nothing like looking at 200 years of data, and trying to predict how things will be going forward.
Let me give you a really simple example of the difference. A military historian can look back at a given battle, look at all the records, look at whatever physical evidence remains, talk to anyone who might have been there if they are still alive, and come up with a pretty accurate depiction of how that battle went, who won it, and what effect it had on military strategy from that point on. If he brings in other historians, they might have a few disagreement about this point or that, but they will agree on all the big stuff like who won, and how the battle went in general. Now you give those same two historians all the available factors on an upcoming battle, and ask them how it is going to go. Their answers will have no more bearing on how the battle actually goes, than would anyone else's. The ignorant soldiers, who are actually fighting the battle, will have just as strong a view, and probably more to do with the outcome than the learned historian. You will also find that the two historians, who are fine and wise historians, will color their predictions heavily based on their political bias, and emotional attachment to one side or the other. Such is the curse of speculative science, as opposed to investigative science.
You are quite fond of quoting studies, yet where in these studies is the science? There is always the statement of "this is how we think it works" then there is the "this is the statistical evidence that supports our belief" then we jump straight to the "so we all agree this must be happening." Where were the experiments? Where was the attempt to disprove the hypothesis? These are writs of dogma supported by statistical analysis. It isn't science when a bunch of economists do it to prove poverty doesn't really exist, and it isn't science in this case either.
Slashdot Mirror
If that it true (I don't have current ownership figures so I can't say) then things have changed a lot since the big Eisner Disney showdown, because those sure weren't the figures at that point.
Ah yes, I can tell you must be a genius from your calm, well-reasoned, insightful analysys of the situation.
Besides, it is always evident when you are dealing with a highly intelligent individual, not swayed by fads or expectations, because they always attach their ego to the same brand as all the other brilliant free-thinking individualists.
I wish I was smart and independent enough to be a member of the brilliant creative loners club, so I could get the newsletter making sure I got all the right talking points. As it is I'm so stupid I have to do all my thinking for myself.
Oh well, it's lonely in this basment. I guess I'll just have to go back to making a friend to watch TV with out of all these fast food wrappers.
Hmm... let see:
1 a : the state of being plural b : the state of being numerous c : a large number or quantity
2 : PLURALISM 1; also : a benefice held by pluralism
3 a : a number greater than another b : an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate c : a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast
Nope, unless you are going to take the incredibly pedantic position that 5% is a greater number than 3%, then it really isn't a plurality. I mean, technically, I suppose you could say that anyone with 2 shares has a plurality of shares, but then I really don't understand the sentence "and Steve Jobs (who turns up once again) is the plurality shareholder " since under that definition anyone with around $50 can be a "plurality shareholder."
No, I believe than in the context of that statement plurality, usually would mean something more like 3b or even more so 3c. You would have a very hard time arguing that 5%, or even 7% would ever be greater than the number cast for any other candidate. As I read the post, the author is clearly trying to imply that Jobs would have the largest number of shares, and thus the largest number of controlling votes. This is simply not the case. Jobs has more shares than any single person, but not more than any single voting entity. Jobs does not have the biggest vote on the board, or necessarily even a deciding vote on the board. In some situations 5% could sway things one way or another if the vote were really tight, but for the most part, the lage entities that control percentages in the respectable double digits won't even have to pay attention to a guy who controls 5% of the vote unless they want to. That hardly makes it a plurality.
According to your own link it is $48.24 Billion.
I have seen anywhere between $6.3 to $7.5 Billion for this deal. It is not finalized yet, so it is hard to say, but remeber Steve Jobs only owns half of Pixar, not the whole thing. That said, the terms of the deal I have seen are pretty consistant that every Pixar shareholder will get 2.3 shares of Disney. Now I don't know the total of issued Disney shares, or the total of Pixar shares, so it is hard to say the exact percentage, but I from what I hear it is a lot closer to 5% than 7%.
OK, I know this is hard for Mac people to hear, but 3-5% is not a plurality! I know every Jobs fan wants to spin this as Steve Jobs now owns Disney, but he in fact has about twice as much stock as Eisner, and man with so much pull at Disney, they fired him! Jobs owns more stock than any other individual presently does (members of the Disney family used to own more, but they sold them during the Eisner years). That does not mean Jobs is the largest shareholder, just that he owns the most stock of any one person. There are several large financial institutions, mutual funds, and holding companies that own far more stock than Jobs.
The thing that is wrong about all these Machead wet dreams where this is "following the Apple/NeXT pattern" is that Apple was a small, struggling, company buying out an even smaller, more struggling company. No one on earth except Jobs and his fan club gave a damn about what happened to either company. Besides, years before the Apple/NeXT merger, the Jobs faithful had already been screaming that management should bring Jobs back. This deal with Disney is a very different deal. Some of the largest financial institutions on earth care very much what happens to Disney, and have quite a bit invested in the company. This isn't the CEO of the month club like Apple was when Jobs came back. This is a big company with fairly competant management, who fought long and hard to get where they are now.
The real story here is that John Lasseter (a creative person) is at the helm at Disney. It has been a very long time since the creatives have had control at Disney. Personally, I think it is a lot more likely that Lasseter will be the next CEO if Disney. Jobs, he just has a few more billion to convince you people he doesn't care about.
You know, you could just as easily say:
Those cars are very nice, but none of them are really practical for everyday use. It's pretty hard to put in a 300lb. toolbox inside a BMW.
and then use that as proof for why the Dodge Ram is the best performance car.
Yes, I am well aware of the fact that if you start adding condition, on top of condition, on top of condition, you can eventually construct a scenario where there is only one choice that makes sense. That doesn't make your ultimate argument a proof of much of anything though. For example, it isn't hard at all to fit a child seat in a Rolls Royce, is it?
All you are really saying is that for cars under $200K but over $30k, that can be used for suburban errands, have a fair amount of acceleration, and are made in Germany, The BMW rates pretty high. Well fine, but I don't really see how that very limited example is particularly at odds with what I said to begin with. As I said before, the BMW is just a middle of the road car that they sell to a certain type of person who likes being told that they are paying for the "ultimate driving experience." You yourself admit that the car might not be exemplary in any way, but just that it makes the people who buy them feel good. This is true of every single upscale brand in every market. A pair of $250 Designer jeans aren't really made out of any better fabric, or constructed to last longer, or even necessarily more attractive than a $40 pair of Levis, but they make the purchaser feel superior to your average K-Mart shopper, and thus they say they are better. That doesn't actually make them better, it just makes the person who bought them more susceptible to marketing than your average consumer. This is the same thing.
I don't argue with your assessment at all. Certainly there are companies like Sony and Apple that target one end of the computer market, while companies like Dell and Gateway go after a different market. I am just amazed that in all the times I have heard this argument, it has never once been any car company other than BMW. It is, in my mind, beyond coincidence that with all the car companies to choose from, BMW is always the one that gets brought up.
Sorry for mistaking you for a machead if you aren't. But when you have heard countless macheads make the exact same argument, down to the very same brand of car, it is hard not to assume the person making the argument is one.
Really, BMW attracts driving enthusiasts? Here in L.A. (where there are one or two BMWs on the road) it really seems like BMWs attract donught shop owners, nightclub managers, accountants, and girls who like buying cars on their boyfriend's credit cards. It seems like most of the driving enthusiasts prefer Porsches, Lamborghinis, Aston Martins, Lotuses, Corvettes, Nissan Zs and Vipers.
I see a lot more BMWs at the grocery store and preschool than I do slamming down PCH at thrilling speeds.
American or not, I've owned 4 VWs, and two BMWs. I am quite familiar with both brands, and can tell you that the build quality of a modern VW and the build quality of a modern BMW are about on par. Hell, the last time I was looking at cars, there were Mazdas that had better build quality than some of the BMWs! As far as which car will last you longer, it is passing premature to talk about how long a 2006 is going to last, as there is absolutely nothing but manufacturer promises on which to base that claim. Personally, I think the proof of the longevity of a car is on the road, not in the promises of a dealer in a showroom.
On the road, you will see a lot fewer 20 year-old BMWs than you will 20 year-old Mercedes or VWs.
My point, however, is that within a given price range, you can find cars by Audi, Jaguar, Mercedes, Lexus, Cadillac, Acura, Infinity, or even a high-end Dodge. Why is it that every single time this "Apple is like a luxury car" analogy is trotted out, it is always BMW? There is no argument (outside of a BMW dealership) that BMW is far from making the best, most luxurious, most appointed cars in the world. That honor would have to go to Rolls Royce, Bentley, or Maybach. BMW doesn't make the highest performance cars, that would have to go to Lamborghini, Ferrari, or an exotic manufacturer like McLaren. No, all BMW represents is an adequately built car, in a price range attainable by your average middle class manager willing to take on some extra debt. As such, its perceived value gets inflated because the people who can afford it want to believe they are buying "the best money can buy," when they in fact know the best will never be within their reach. There is nothing intrinsically better about a BMW over a Lexus, Audi, or any of those other cars. It just appeals to a certain kind of person who like being told by the salesman that they are paying for the "ultimate driving experience." In that way, I suppose it makes perfect sense why Mac people are so drawn to the brand, since they don't care how their computer actually performs, they just like being told they are getting the "ultimate user experience."
What is it with Macheads and BMWs? I have seen this analogy for 20 years now, and it is ALWAYS BMW.
The thing that cracks me up, is I don't even know what it means! BMWs aren't luxury cars, and aren't even particularly good cars. Bentley, Rolls Royce, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maybach even Mercedes, now those are luxury cars. BMW is the Ford Escort for every middle manager, real estate agent, sorority girl, and soccer mom the world over. The brand has about the same prestige as Cadillac, and the build quality of a Volkswagen.
I mean, I suppose it does have a certain relevance to Apple, in that it is a brand that Macheads put up on a pedestal for no apparent reason. I suppose it also has some correlation because it is a brand that middle class Americans like to associate with the upper class, while still being in their price range. Maybe they always get lumped together because the only person saying that either of the products are the best in the world, is the guy selling it to you? However, I don't think any of these were the association you were going for.
What kills me though is that without fail it is always BMW. I have never once heard this argument stated with Jaguar, or Lotus, or Infinity, or Porsche, or Rolls Royce. Is this in some sort of secret "how to make yourself feel superior by buying a Mac" playbook they issue you guys?
The point is Mercedes makes "luxury" cars too, and it is the largest auto company in the world. Jaguar, Lexus, Porsche Acura, and Lotus all make "luxury" cars and they are just divisions of huge auto makers that make those plain old stinky cars for those icky unwashed masses who buy cars to get around, instead of to impress their neighbors. Don't let a flawed analogy fool you into thinking that market share and quality are somehow exclusive of each other.
Oh yeah, so let me get this straight, in your world Dell, Apple, Sun, and HP all have keys to your server room and the codes to your alarm system, and logons to your network, so they can all get into your building in the middle of the night without your staff having to get out of bed? I hate to break it to you, if you have a catastrophic failure at 2:00AM requiring immediate hardware replacement, one of your employees is going to have to get out of bed in the middle of the night, no matter where you buy your hardware.
I mean, by your logic, why have a data center at all? Why not just outsource the entire thing to some other company? Oh, right, because some companies actually like to keep their proprietary information confidential, instead of just storing it in their Gmail account!
I'm sorry, your entire response is nothing but a huge rationalization founded on an incredibly false dichotomy in which these vendors are all staffed entirely by brilliant engineers who have nothing but your company's best interests at heart, while your company's only hiring options are incompetent boobs who have nothing but their self-interest at heart. The reality of the situation is that you can hire from the exact same pool Dell, or Apple, or Sun do, and if they work for you, then their interest is in getting it right. If they work for the vendor, their interest is in nothing more than the commission. Also, it is great to say that hardware is an insignificant cost compared to HR and office space, but I know plenty of company VPs who would tend to disagree, what with having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their data center hardware that they stuck in a cheap office park, and staffed with a few $50k employees.
I don't know where you live, but there really isn't a shortage of people who can work with these computer things. I suspect that you are just easily dazzled by the show these vendors put on of having a team of "experts" to help you "design your architecture." Your entire post reads like a Dell sales brochure. The reality of the situation is that most of these "Experts" are just salespeople reading off a script, and pushing the parts they've been told to push. Believe me, I used to work at a pretty large vendor, and I have seen it in action.
The problem is that in a few years, when you need to "grow your system" Dell, or Apple, or any of them, could give a crap less about anything but getting you to reinvest in a whole new set of hardware all over again. That is, by the way, how they make their money you know. I mean seriously, look at one of these quotes and think for a second. The services fees they charge for their 24/7 support are almost enough to buy the hardware in and of themselves! Sure, I suppose that sounds like a good enough deal if you are buying 5 systems, and want to get away with not having any IT staff in your office at all, but when you start talking about real purchasing in the hundreds of systems, that cost starts mounting. Besides, if you really think you can maintain a datacenter with hundreds of machines without a staff of in-house people who actually know what they are doing, then you are just plain insane.
You are overlooking one major factor here. Apple, Dell, HP, whoever, are just using off the shelf parts that anyone can buy, yet are charging quite a premium for all that support. I just recently did a cost analysis for a real estate company looking for a large storage solution. I got quotes from all the vendors, I even got a second round of counter quotes from all the vendors. In the end, the lowest quote was still so high, that you could build the boxes, and still have enough money to buy a complete second set of disks!
I'm sorry, your support argument sounds good, but it just falls apart when you think about it for five seconds. Sure, Dell or Sun will promise you no more than a 4 hour downtime, and that sounds pretty good. However, what I had this client do, was take all the money he would have given to Dell, build the servers he needed, and then fill a closet with identical servers. Now if a disk or even entire server goes down, he just walks over to the closet, pulls out a replacement, and is back up in minutes! He paid exactly the same amount he would have for the lowest quote, got the same or better hardware he would have received from a tier-1 vendor, and got twice as much of it, so that he has enough replacement parts to last him years. You don't need an expensive support contract if you already have a replacement on hand.
You do know that atheism is not actually a synonym for secular, don't you? There are plenty of people who believe that the matters of man are the matters of man, and the matters of religion are separate from that; yet still believe in some sort of spiritual existence, be it God, or Buda or whatever.
I get so tired of people like you who see the word "secular" and automatically assume "look, godless heathens!"
Also, the lack of a belief in god is not the same thing as a belief in the lack of a god. It is only myopic religious provincialism which boils things down to the childish level where you either believe in the One True God, or you are some kind of damned atheist! The fact of the matter is, even IF you honestly believe in some sort of supernatural being guiding all events in the world, there is still a big question as to WHICH of these gods you should believe in. Then there is the question of whether there is one, or a pantheon of them, who their chosen people are, was Jesus a profit, or a Buda, or the son of God, what foods you are and aren't allowed to eat on which days, who did and didn't get resurrected when... it goes on for quite a while. Only someone who was indoctrinated young, and never once even thought to question their belief could possibly think it was as simple as you either believe in god or you don't.
If you want to know why you might get dismissed by that whopping 10% of the country who says they aren't religious, that last point might have more to do with it than you think. You see, those of us who weren't raised in a particular religious tradition, still have to wrestle with the same moral questions you religious people do, and most of us go out and try to find some answers. While you are flipping through your bible looking for what King James approved as the proper answers, we are finding out what the Greeks thought on the subject, what Hindis think about it, what the Shinto view is, what Druidic tradition says, and yes, even what they say in the Bible. While you are asking your priest the church thinks a particular passage means, we are researching the Thomas Gospel and the Rabbinical interpretations of the Torah.
You see, you are absolutely right that no one should call your judgment into question simply because of your faith. However, calling someone's judgment into question because they are basing their every moral decision, and possibly even their eternal state of being, on a single book out of thousands of other books out there claiming to cover the exact same ground, IS a good reason to call their judgment into question! I mean, your belief says that roughly 67% of the people on Earth have it wrong, and are all doomed to an eternity of damnation. That is a pretty big claim, and when the reasoning behind that is "it says it right here in the book," there is a pretty strong justification for calling your judgment into question. I know you don't see it this way, but some of us have never once in our entire life settled for "God said so" as an answer to any question. So, there is an immediate suspicion of the critical thinking ability of those for whom that is all the answer they need.
Well, I am not as familliar with other countries as I am with America, but in America privacy has nothing to do with the right of free speech. privacy has a lot more to do with the idea that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think it is so funny when I hear people likle you talk about privacy as some fanciful luxury that we are silly to think we are owed. What we are owed, at least in this country, is the ownership of our property, and information is (in case you haven't heard) property. You can buy it, you can sell it, and you can even go to jail for stealing it. In fact, that little quote from the constitution about even explicitly protects it. After all, they aren't making a point of protecting the actual pieces of paper, they are protecting the information on the paper.
The problem with the modern state of "privacy laws" is that they do exactly what you are doing here, which is try to set up privacy as some special luxury, which they then say isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. It is a dodge specifically designed to make it seem like personal information is not property. Meanwhile, in the corporate sector, every year we have more and more laws aimed at protecting information as a tangible good, a commodity, property. The effect is to set up a de facto double standard, where actual people are second class citizens not allowed to own intellectual property, while corporations are the first class citizens allowed to use the full power of the law to protect their ownership of intellectual property.
Information is either property, or it isn't. If you can buy and sell the ideas in a novel, and you can face legal action for stealing the ideas in a novel, then it is obviously property. If the ideas in a novel are property, then what you and your wife are saying to eachother in email is just as much property, and so should be protected by the fourth amendment just like any other property.
Oh, I had really hoped that the one upside of the bubble bursting would be that people would finally see the leveraged synergistics of empowered, paradigm-shifting, buzzword groupthink, as the load of con-man fast talk it really is. My rectum gets all in a bunch at the very concept that these out-of-the-box, emergent asshats will be once again squaring off for the mindshare of our collective intelligence, so that they can capture eyeballs to secure a solid ROI in their VC funding!
You know, you would think that after losing tons of money in the last dotcom bust, people would figure out that if you have to make up words to describe your idea, it probably isn't a very good one. It is funny to me how the most successful businesses out of the last buzzword feeding frenzy had descriptions like "You use it to find information" or "it is an auction, on the computer" or "you pay to see nude women, on the computer" or "you buy things, and they are shipped to you."
But no, now we have Web 2.0, and all the English mangling, linguistically garbage spewing, criminal bottom feeders who missed out on their last chance to bilk investors out of millions of dollars, will have another shot at it! And all the rest of us will have to hear all over again how we just "don't get it" because we lack the vision to see the future. Oh joy!
First off, I want to say that the type of answers you gave are exactly the sort of reason I became interested in the psychology of faith in human-driven global warming. I am not saying that as a way to discredit what you say, and I will address every single one of your points in turn. Perhaps you will see then what I mean, but the short version is that you automatically think that if there is doubt introduced, then it is best to err on the side of your theory, not in doubt of your theory. That is the reaction of a true believer, not the reaction of a skeptic. The skeptical approach is to assume that the burden of proof lies on the person purporting the theory, not on the person calling it into question. By the way this is very long, and I'm tired. Please forgive any stupid typos, or any rambling responses.
The biggest thing I want to point out here is that you said, in your own words, "potentially some of the difference was due to uncertainties in measurement." I will come back to this later, because I think it is important. As far as mischaracterizing the position of the NRC goes, my characterization is that there were a set of data points that did not track with the model, and they said that those data points couldn't be trusted, because they didn't track with the model, so shouldn't be considered. You can throw more words at it if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the data didn't track, and they discounted the data. The problem here is that the model says that if factors are such, then the results should be such. In any logical argument, if you can call any part of the conclusion into question, then that calls the reasoning that led you to that conclusion into question. You might not see it that way, but that is how it is.
Ok, seriously, you can't have it both ways. You can't first explain why the data is erroneous, then turn right around and say "but it proves me right anyway." If your first argument is true, then the data can't prove anything, because it lacks the accuracy to have any validity to the argument. That said, do you mean to say that before 2000, none of the models took aerosols into account? I specifically mentioned satellite data from 2000, and a review of that data by the NRC (who you normally seem to think very highly of), and according to the NRC at the time, the data didn't track with the models. Are you saying that the NRC just forgot to take aerosols into account when they reviewed the data?
I would have to say that Planetes has to be the best space show ever made! It is the kind of actuall science fiction that Hollywood has never had the brains and guts to even try.
Mighty Space Miners is another show in the same mold, but it didn't ever get off the ground.
No, no, no, you completely misunderstand. I wasn't trying to put any words in your mouth at all. I was just honestly surprised that when asked for an example of a simulation you found to be accurate, that you chose to uses that one. I just didn't expect that. I was seriously just trying to figure out why you chose that?
My point was just to try and get a feel for what you consider accurate. I now can calibrate how I take your comments about the accuracy of a model. Your primary determining factor for accuracy, appears to be how well it tracks with temperature data. There is clearly no way to argue that GISS Model II is accurately modeling changes in currents and jet streams, or perturbations in the upper atmosphere, or even the effect of land surface atmospheric interference. You are arguing pretty squarely that the results fit the temperature data, so all the rest of that stuff is obviously pretty irrelevant, since on the measure you are concerned with, you got the results that fit the data.
I am not saying that is an inherently invalid way to judge accuracy or anything. It just is not the definition of accurate I would have gone with. When you are talking about how a small number of factors drive a complex system, you run a serious risk of coming up with seemingly useful results for an oversimplification of the problem. I think this model could very well be a prime example of that. It leaves a lot of factors out. To say that the temperature result was correct, so obviously the left out factors are unimportant is, is bad reasoning.
A simple example of this would be, if I run a simple Runge-Kutta rigid body simulation on a sphere falling, and I test it against a falling ball with the same physical properties in a lab, it will appear to be a very accurate simulation. If I then try to test the simulation against a penny falling off a building, the simulation will either be reasonably accurate, or totally useless, depending on how many of the unconsidered factors come into play. Most likely, it will be totally useless, but there will be cases in experimentation where unconsidered factors happen to cancel each other out, and the result looks far more accurate than it really is. If I then try to use it to predict how a feather will fall, it will be truely worthless, because the driving factors of the simulation, and the driving factors of the actual event are are not the same.
Oh yeah, one more thing.
Are you serious? There have been huge advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics over the past 20 years, and you choose a model from the '80s as your best example of an accurate simulation? There are some quite significant things that had not been worked out yet in CFD back when that model was made. I don't know if you are pulling my leg, testing me, or just plain serious about picking that as what you think is one of the more accurate models?
You have repeatedly ignored the meat of my argument, to instead nibble around the edges. For example you say:
completely ignoring that I clearly drew the distinction, as I saw it, between these disciplines when I said:
And:
Yet you go right forward with pretending like I never said those things, like I drew no distinction, like I just said what you wanted me to say, which was that all observational sciences are bunk. The meat of the argument you are avoiding is that unlike the other sciences you mention, climatologists are incredibly, and I would argue intentionally, myopic in how they look at the data. Their models get more and more vague the further in the past you get from the industrial revolution. Their data is decidedly focused on an accurate accounting of one particular part of the equation (human-produced greenhouse gasses), and are pretty forgiving of errors in any other factor. They are also primarily concerned with attempting to predict the future, to the point that it is of little or no concern to them that their models cannot account for the many warm periods our planet experienced long before there could have possibly been any influence by man. If you insist on attempting to constantly try an equate climatology to evolution, I am forced to point out that it is a lot more like eugenics, or evolutional psychology, than evolution.
By the way, I know you will hate to hear this, but the fact of the matter is that even your venerable evolution is anything but a settled issue. No, I'm not talking about the intelligent design crap! I'm talking about the new genetic data that is forcing biologists to, in an odd way, reexamine the old Darwinian vs. Lamarckian arguments. It turns out that some of the genetic code replications and transference can't be explained by a straight Darwinian model. So, if you make a habit of trotting out evolution as your number one example of an area of science where there is also absolutely no debate, you might want to start looking for a new poster-child case.
Your entire initial argument was that there is no debate on global warming,
Ok, if you want to argue actual methodology, instead of just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus, then I'm game for that. Here are just a few. These are all criticisms I have heard from either physicists, biologists, environmentalist, historians, botanists, or geologists. I will fully admit, that they pretty much all fall under the basic category of "climatologists don't have enough respect for my field of study," but that doesn't make them automatically invalid.
As recently as 2000, satellite data has shown that the lower and middle troposphere have had negligible, if any increase in temperature, even though most of the models climatologists have been using claim that we should be seeing rises in the troposphere that correspond to the surface level warming trends. The National Research Council's response to this was to decide that as a matter of policy, satellite data should not be used as an argument against global warming. Now, how is that not an example of cherry picking data? You have a model, you have a prediction, you have instruments capable of checking the validity of the model, and when they show the model to be inaccurate, you throw out the previously respected data, as erroneous.
Another example, is that the climatologist model does not address changes in cosmic radiation and solar winds, even though there are several physicists who maintain that there demonstrable and measurable effects on cloud cover and temperature as a result of cosmic radiation. Climatologists summarily dismiss this theory as having no significant relevance, because their models as they stand now explain everything, without taking those factors into account, so they must be insignificant factors. Climatologists then further try to discredit the theory by applying statistical analysis to the problem, and claiming that the seeming correlation is just a smoothing error by the physicists, resulting from poor statistical analysis. Here is the problem, it is not just a statistical argument. There are underlying physical principals at work that massaging the statistical data does not invalidate. Creating a model of how our planet traps cosmic radiation, while simultaneously ignoring changes in the radiation levels hitting the planet, is just bad methodology.
Many examinations of the previously accepted historical records, would strongly suggest that the current trend in global warming started in the 17th century, long before industrialization could have contributed to this trend. If this is true, it becomes extremely hard to factor in how much of the change is being caused by environmental pollution, and how much is part of a natural cycle. Further more, it calls into question the veracity of several models that have found man-made sources of greenhouse gasses to be the primary cause of global warming. The climatologist response has been, predictably, to throw out any historical records that suggest a pre-industrial start to the trend, as being inaccurate, and erroneous.
It was only in '99 that climatologists even started taking methane seriously as having any significant possible effect on the temperature of the planet, even though geologists think that it was mainly methane that was responsible for higher-than-current temperatures in the Cenozoic era. Once again, not too surprisingly, climatologists found that even though they had not factored this gas, it really didn't make a difference to their predictions.
The models, as a whole, tend to have a very high fudge factor when dealing with real-world natural events like large scale forest fires, volcanoes, and how events like El Niño effect the ability to accurately assess a trend over the past 20 years. For example, climatologists made no changes in their models after the historic Mexican wildfires in '98. These fires had to have had a significant effect on the environment, since they were some of the largest in recorded history, burning over one million acres and causing dangerous air quality issues in more than six nations. Yet, they are jus
Ah, I see. So your position is that there has been a perfect consensus among the entire scientific community for some time, but don't listen to those environmentalists, because they are a bunch of loons, and don't listen to geologists, because they don't really know what they are talking about, and don't listen to environmental chemists, because they aren't studying the problem properly, and don't listen to physicists, because they aren't part of the right club. None the less, there isn't a single scientist who disagrees with these findings, outside of a few kooks.
Ok, so climatologists are the only scientists in the world, their grasp of how the ecosystem works is inarguably perfect, and they have nothing to learn from any other branch of science, because those people don't know what they are talking about anyway. All that is important is that the climatologists all agree. Of course, anyone who doesn't realize that is an ignorant fool, who has no right to talk about science. Well, I can certainly see why you find it so hard to believe anyone would not see the inherent truth of you position. You remind me a lot of supporters of Objectivism. You pick your position, then start your "examination of the facts" by first disqualifying large amounts of data as being either spurious, dubious, or irrelevant, then oh what a surprise the result you find is exactly the result you were looking for to start with.
You even argue the same way. Rather than reading what is on the page as a whole, you pick little snippets out of context, based on how well you can use them to make the person you are arguing with fit your preconceptions of what an unbeliever must be. When you get into trouble, of course, you fall right back to the same appeal to authority, over and over, and over again.
You see, here is my problem. Whether you believe it or not, I'm actually an uncommonly smart guy, who spends most of his time doing nothing but thinking about the world, then going and hunting down other really smart people at universities and such. I ask them questions, to learn more about things, and I read whatever they point me to. I study just about every discipline, from economics to philosophy, physics to biology. This keeps me from being an expert at any of these disciplines, but I've never really had a hard time finding people accomplished in the field, who can explain to me what they are doing, and work through their theories, and explain to me how it works, and why they think it works that way. That is, except climatologists. Any time I try to follow up on this line of inquiry, all I find, are people like you. People who don't claim to be particularly accomplished in the field, people who don't even claim to have their own theories, but rather people who say over and over "well, a bunch of really smart people got together somewhere else, and they came up with this report. Since they are so much smarter than you or me, we just have to trust that they know what they are talking about, because they are all really smart, and they all agree." It is funny, but there aren't many other sciences that work that way. When I ask a physicist a question, he can usually tell me who is working specifically on the type of research that is relevant to my line of inquiry, and who I need to talk to to get a better handle on what the current theory is. I can't remember ever once having a geologist direct me to an organization, or governing body to answer a question. It is always something more along the lines of "oh yeah, Bob Smith is the guy you want to talk to about that. He is doing the most exciting work in the field on that." The closest analog I can find to how climatology works, is the field of medicine, or the political sciences.
I suppose being able to just ramble around talking to people like this is one of the advantages of being an artist, and not having to go to a job every day. One of the many things I have learned from this interdisciplinary search for knowledge, is that an awful lot of otherwise really smart scientists
I have to say, that this is one of the most honest, intelligent points I've seen in this entire debate!
You see, I don't personally believe that the current global trend to warmer weather is being caused by man, nor do I know if this trend will continue, for any great amount of time. I have heard just as much argument over the years suggesting that in the slightly longer term, it might even be an ice age we are heading into.
What I do know, is that at least at the moment, temperatures are going up, fossil fuel dependency is causing major economic and social problems, and smog is a major problem in every city in America, and most major cities in the rest of the world. I agree that what we should be focusing on is how to make our lives more sustainable, and thus more pleasant. I think there should be a lot less talk about what is causing this or that, and a lot more talk about what we, as individuals, can do to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. That would certainly have the effect of cutting down on pollutants, just as the global warming proponents want, and whether or not there is any connection between the use of fossil fuels or not, it would make life better for everyone involved.
I would suggest, however, that there is a fair amount of FUD coming from both sides of the argument, not just one side. I think that a lot of good initiatives have died a horrible death because people on both sides are so caught up in their vilification of the other side, that there can't be a rational discussion about how to make our lives better.
I think that a lot of what your average environmentalist says they want to accomplish, could easily be put into terms that most people, and even a fair amount of businesses would agree with. Unfortunately, instead of even trying to make arguments about better quality of living, health benefits, cost savings, the long-term stability of domestically available renewable energy sources, and so forth, the argument quickly devolves into
"Your killing the planet, you greedy fat cat!"
"No we aren't you communist hippy!"
I think that for better or worse, the movement towards sustainable, renewable, and clean energy is going to be a very slow process, until the anti-corporate rhetoric can be removed as an integral part of any discussion about the topic. By the same token, people have to have it made clear to them that the choice is theirs.
A quick example of what I mean: I live in LA, and I hear a lot about how the greedy corporate types are killing the planet, yet I am the only person I know in the entire city of LA who doesn't own a car. Yes, I have heard the argument that it is the big corporations that are creating 90% of the pollution, so what car you drive doesn't really matter. However, you can't ask others to do something you aren't willing to do yourself. If you aren't willing to give up your car for what you believe in, then why should a company change the way they do business just because you tell them it is bad? I don't even believe that we are killing the planet, and I can still see the sense of not driving up to the convenience store when I could walk, or taking a $3 train ride instead of paying $3 a gallon for gas!
When it comes down to it, we need companies to provide products and services that are less dependent on fossil fuels. Running around talking about how evil corporations are, and how excessive American are, the whole while consuming fossil fuels yourself, is not the solution. Creating a market for alternatives, and voting with your wallet is the quickest way to get a company to change its focus. If tomorrow 15% of America got rid of their gas-burning cars, and either started taking public transportation, or buying alternate energy vehicles, companies would be climbing all over themselves to figure out how to cash in on this new green craze! They wouldn't care why you were doing it, they wouldn't care what you thought about the environment, those would all be things for their marketing department to worry about. They would
Oh what I wouldn't give for a few more godless scientists! That is exactly what we don't have enough of.
How I long for the days of skeptical scientists who didn't trust anything but what they could observe, and replicate. Unfortunately, ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more and more scientists have been worshiping at the altar of science itself as the new religion, with mathematical models as the new infallible demigod that trumps all observable evidence.
Far too many scientists, and even a larger number of their science enamored acolytes, have become convinced that math is a magic window into the soul of the universe. A perfect cabalistic language that can tell no lies, and which is by its very nature able to conjure up the true essence of all things. Far too much skepticism has been lost, and more and more experiential evidence is being discarded as anecdotal, if it does not agree with the writ of math, the one true perfect language.
Sure, when pressed to the wall, all scientists will spout by rote the now almost meaningless tenants of science being innately skeptical, and all about testing and attempting to disprove theories. Yet, far too many, in their unguarded moments, will blithely throw around phrases like "impossible," "we know" and "it's just a fact." In many circles skepticism has become a mere formality, or something you trot out of the closet when attacking someone else's beliefs, but never something that is applied to one's own theories.
No, we have far too many true believers in science. If there are any godless scientists still out there, I beg them to never repent!
Oh, and I don't know where you live, but most of the places I've lived in my life, you would be just as well served assuming the exact opposite of whatever the weatherman said. Sure, here in LA, you are pretty safe saying "warm and sunny," but when I lived in Texas, the old guy at the convenience store had just about the same accuracy as all the Doppler radar in the state:-)
Well, I never said a single thing you attribute to me in that little snippet, nor anything like it. However, since you seem confused by what I did say, let me rephrase it so that you might understand. There are two kinds of people in any scientific debate, the people who claim to know exactly how things work, and the reputable scientists. You get to choose to be one or the other, but you can never be both. A reputable scientist gathers as much information as possible, and then tries to guess at what it might mean. They come up with a theory, and then they attempt to disprove the theory. If they cannot disprove the theory, then they accept it as a good guess until more information is gathered, and the theory can either be refined or disproved. If there is no way to test the theory, then no amount of consensus would make a reputable scientist say "well we can't test it, but we all agree this must be what is happening."
That said, I'll accommodate you, and reply to the words you tried to put in my mouth. See, geologists don't say "we know how a mountain forms, so we can tell you when the next mountain will be popping up." The theory of plate tectonics explains why there are earthquakes, but so far their attempts to anticipate earthquakes have been just about as successful as watching dogs to see how they react to earthquakes. And evolution doesn't predict what adaptations will occur in response to a given environment, it just attempts to explain how the adaptations that are already there came about. See, all of those sciences are attempting to look back at billions of years of evidence, and understand how things occurred in the past. That is pretty much nothing like looking at 200 years of data, and trying to predict how things will be going forward.
Let me give you a really simple example of the difference. A military historian can look back at a given battle, look at all the records, look at whatever physical evidence remains, talk to anyone who might have been there if they are still alive, and come up with a pretty accurate depiction of how that battle went, who won it, and what effect it had on military strategy from that point on. If he brings in other historians, they might have a few disagreement about this point or that, but they will agree on all the big stuff like who won, and how the battle went in general. Now you give those same two historians all the available factors on an upcoming battle, and ask them how it is going to go. Their answers will have no more bearing on how the battle actually goes, than would anyone else's. The ignorant soldiers, who are actually fighting the battle, will have just as strong a view, and probably more to do with the outcome than the learned historian. You will also find that the two historians, who are fine and wise historians, will color their predictions heavily based on their political bias, and emotional attachment to one side or the other. Such is the curse of speculative science, as opposed to investigative science.
You are quite fond of quoting studies, yet where in these studies is the science? There is always the statement of "this is how we think it works" then there is the "this is the statistical evidence that supports our belief" then we jump straight to the "so we all agree this must be happening." Where were the experiments? Where was the attempt to disprove the hypothesis? These are writs of dogma supported by statistical analysis. It isn't science when a bunch of economists do it to prove poverty doesn't really exist, and it isn't science in this case either.