I think more and more people kept making dummy accounts to accumulate mod points and use them to shape discussions.
You can get the moderation formula down-- don't visit multiple times/day. Every 2-3 days seems to give me pretty consistent mod points. The metamoderation I believe has you rate whether or not a users' unrelated comments "add to the discussion" and are helpful. I think this is how it works at least. Ideally, people that do not mod fairly would post sucky comments. But obviously, this is not always the case. Most people may be perfectly safe modders until something like the AGW CRU scandal pops up-- if you noticed, in the first discussion we (slashdot as a whole in that thread) clearly determined that there was manipulation of evidence occurring, that this was not the scientific method, and the further attempts to hide the data/claim it was lost from a harddrive crash/delete it/etc. were plenty damning of AGW supports, and were supporting of the skeptic's desire for more peer review. What scientist doesn't allow people to see the original, un-"adjusted" data, etc. etc etc... So in the first discussion we determined this; then there were several new stories posted about this later on, yet in these many comments such as "I looked at it and there is no evidence of data manipulation" got modded to 5, and many comments suggesting otherwise (and even those pointing back to the original, first entry where we determined what we did) were modded "troll" and "flamebait", to do just as you say, hide posts because the guy with mod points didn't agree.
Throwing the rating of other peoples' modding decisions (the original metamod scheme) doesn't help because then the people that metamod can do the same thing that they do if they want to mod someone down because they don't like the opinion-- they rate the +1 modding for a comment about a political ideology that they personally do not agree with, as being an incorrect/bad mod. Then the moderators that support questioning of AGW and mod up posts that bring up valid points, no longer receive moderation ability.
Now consider in all the above that the people most active on this site tend to be of a younger type-- myself included. As life progresses, we learn more things, our minds expand, and doing the same old just doesn't stimulate us like it used to. So we move on with life-- job, girlfriend->wife->kids, wham no time for slashdot anymore. So all the people that have balanced lives, that aren't political left/right extremists that troll the internet, in other words the people that we want to be doing moderation, aren't visiting. Of the few that do spend to dump their leisure time into slashdot, it's probably unlikely that they will receive mod points. So you can see the dilemma.
I also noticed an uptick bad mods when they started granting people 10 and 15 points to mod with. Maybe we should all go back to groups of 5 points, so that everybody would rather spend their points modding up posts that pick out faults with parent posts, rather than simply modding the parent post itself as flamebait or troll.
I think on the whole a much more involved moderation system would be needed. Have the meta-mods track how an individual moderator dumps his 5/10/15 points into a discussion. Of course have several people following any individual moderator, and have them all report back. Does the given moderator spend his points wisely? Is he using troll/flamebait to mod down things that are valid/non-inflammatory posts? Encourage those watching the moderator to not be lenient. If it's on the line as to whether the moderator is abusing points, go with abuse. Explain all this in the metamod section so it gets publicity, or create a link that says "read about the new metamod formula!". Many criminals decide not to commit the crime they desire to when they realize they won't be able to get away with it, and part of th
To each his own. I like glancing at my home town newspaper without committing to a big subscription. If the ads don't work, though I won't have that option.
If you really want to live in the past, here's the Wayback Machine's take on Slashdot:
Note, it didn't exist before ads and it won't exist without them.
Don't complain to us, complain to all the websites that implement ginormous banners that slide right over the article I'm reading and ask me DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A QUICK SURVEY!!!??? FREE PS3 IF YOU DO!!!
I don't mind google ads or picture ads, but the second they start implementing flash and slowing my browsing experience down, it all goes out the window.
There you go, some good bait to get the/. crowd all riled up.
To get it out of the way, we need the regulatory institution because the cable providers have a monopoly, are transitioning to digital only signals across the wire, and we don't have any way to set up our own HTPC to record TV shows for viewing/commercial skipping later.
I got money on the fact that this DNS server will be a part of their Android and Chrome OS services. You know, a default setting.
Eh. I don't care anymore. They want the data they can have it. Having thought about it for two years, I've realized they don't have the time to look into anybody in particular. It's all statistical data. The more they can disseminate that, the more they can provide ads that interest me, which means I'm more likely to buy the stuff, which means I get more free things from google.
The same thing happens when China "cracks down." The media whines and opines for a while, but at the end of the day the rest of the world is powerless to stop these boneheads from abusing their own people. I feel for those affected, but at some point the people inside the Matrix need to do more to help themselves. Having the people outside complain really doesn't do a whole lot to make it better.
So if I'm a thug government, I know I can pretty much do what I want, especially if I have something the world wants (cheap labor/oil/etc).
As usual, the best way is to trade with them. Get them hooked on money and their businesses thriving and cutting out internet would set the entire country off at the regime. If we could just get them to let us inspect their nuclear operations every 90 days then trade would be an option...
You must be new here [cough 7 digit UID cough]. We mod things up because they stimulate our thought. When someone is wrong, you reply, and if you had things worth saying you get modded up, too. Making snide remarks about "can't believe you were modded up so far" does not aid in a low-blood-pressure-friendly discussion, and is rather silly when you think about it. Just politely point out they're wrong, let the modding do the b-slapping.
Anyways, you seem to misunderstand what modding is about. It is not about "you are right" or "you are wrong", but rather "do you add to the discussion"? GP definitely added to the discussion.
I've got to give Epic credit, they've taken a lot of criticisms about developing for Unreal to heart and went miles beyond what anyone could have expected.
If they would have just spent 6 months tweaking the PC version of UT3 none of this would have been necessary. Practically the entire UT fanbase was excited about UT3 when they played the demo until they found out the demo was basically the final thing, User Interface and all.
10 years ago in UT99 the UI was capable of browsing for different servers while currently connected in a game. You could select a new one and start downloading the map in the background while continuing to play in the current game. With UT3, you have to stop what you're doing, disconnect from the current game (and hope you'll find a better game), get back to the server browser, pick a server, and if you need the map, watch it download. For the usual 40MB map, you're staring at the download screen for, say, at least a minute if you're on a standard DSL connection. In other words, lots of downtime. They can run all the $5 Direct2Drive promos they want, but if the game is a pain to run, people just won't play it. The gameplay is great but the interface design is so... well I would say y2k, but even stuff that came out 10 years ago was better than this.
Why don't they just come here in Brazil, and offers also this kind of services to us...
It's a shame to Brazil, a potential country having to pay about 60U$ (R$ 100) to a damn megabyte internet access..
Pfff...
Because we have a free market. Not for much longer mind you. The hoards are finding they can just vote money to themselves, and feel justified in doing so because the guys at the top keep getting richer. Wish people would just learn to be content with what they have. Even if Henry Ford takes all your money, you still get to drive around in a Ford. Would you rather have your money back and have to go horse-n-buggy?
I imagine the FCC will do most of the fighting for them.
I call shens on this article though. Smells of hype. No substance.
Related: I used to be able to call my Google Voice number with Skype-- but I can't anymore. I even have logs that show making and holding a connection for 35 seconds or so while I tested the forwarding. Not anymore. "Invalid number". Ebay/Skype/PayPal-- can't stand them.
The short version of everything that's come out so far is: the leading climate scientists pushing AGW were lying left, right, and center, and there is absolutely no evidence, not even a little, to support global warming, let alone AGW. If you haven't done so already,
I've seen it, it shows nothing of the sort. It shows people having considerable difficulty in combining data sets in a consistent and reliable way. This is always a tricky problem. Your "data manipulation" could easily be correction factors for systematic errors or problems with particular data sets. But of course a private note that was never meant to be read is hardly going to be a complete, detailed and fully explained document, is it?
I can only assume that people are reading into it what they want to see.
I invite you to peruse the last Slashdot entry about this. OVERWHELMINGLY we determined there was definitely more going on than "considerable difficulty". Hiding from FOIA requests, conspiring to lock out a publication that wasn't swallowing their bate (how dare a peer review journal ask difficult questions of AGW!). Then we have Phil working to keep these two papers from being seen at the next IPCC meeting--
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers, Phil
If those 2 articles don't present valid arguments questioning AGW (and they do, I've read them and invite you to as well) then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them. Instead they're afraid of dissenting opinions because they don't want to lose their money. Duh.
Yessir, "considerable difficulty" indeed. Sure looks like science to me. What a joke. In my parents time it was global cooling, when I was younger it was a giant hole in the ozone above Australia caused by big evil America, a year ago it was Global Warming, and now it's become "Climate Change". All a farce and an sleight of hand scheme to misuse taxpayer money. Notice CNN didn't once run a story on this. BBC did, credible enough for me. "Considerable difficulty" indeed.
The President is the President, but there's a huge number of people pressuring congress to do things that aren't wise. The same idiots that thought that these policies were a good idea in the general populace are still there. And they're still fighting tooth and nail against any effort to make the country a better place, even against their own self interest. Sure that doesn't make it OK, but it's overly simplistic to assume that the people that were putting pressure on candidates to keep up these unwise policies have suddenly gone into hiding.
What a joke. An ephemeral "people" are pressuring Congress to take more power away from the people. Right.
Obama wants the power just as much as his predecessor did.
He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.
Interesting. So in the space of just 50 years we've gone from "The buck stops here" to "I can't possibly be expected to know about EVERYTHING that my appointee's are up to"
Thought you would have caught up faster!:) First words out of his mouth were "this economic problem I've inherited".
Sure, but Slashdot still facilitates the best discussion on the net. But I think in general as people grow up and find better things to do they move on. So it's always going to be broken because the best people move on.
Can't imagine why contributors are leaving. It's become a cesspool of those who do nothing but revert legitimate edits (to get their edit count up) because it isn't from anyone in power worth brown-nosing to.
Like juries, the people who have enough time to become a real political power in the wikipedia game are not the people we want in charge of the contributions or making decisions.
Ah, I see...this must be why they're trying to keep these two papers from being included in the IPCC report; two papers Mann said he was willing to "redefine" the meaning of peer-review so they wouldn't have to be included. If those two papers present valid arguments (which it sounds like they do) and the IPCC is unbiased in its review, then I can see why they would be afraid of the IPCC reading them. This must be why Manning wrote
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers, Phil
If they don't present valid arguments questioning AGW then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them. So basically they're receiving tax dollars and they're trying to hide the evidence/raw data and avoid FOIA requests.
Ok. So don't hide from FOIA requests. Release the raw data and the truth will out. You know that's the amazing thing about mathematics. It doesn't lie. Nor does a 2-trend graph (CO2&Temperature) is easy to interpret. But I suppose you're right. We're not educated enough to be able to interpret this for ourselves. We need people receiving large sums of taxpayer money to tell us whether or not we should keep giving them large sums of taxpayer money.
That they're not willing to do this, but are actively finding ways to keep from reporting the data for the FOIA. That's all the evidence any rational individual needs.
"Hello there! I noticed that the hole you're drilling in our boat is likely to sink us. I wouldn't dream of stopping you, but why don't you think about slowing down a bit? It could benefit you too."
"So I propose a mandatory 10% fee on the sailors pay to repair this hole! What's that? Oh no, I'm sorry, I can't allow you to see the hole yourself. Also, anyone that questions whether there is a hole in the first place, will be promptly thrown overboard"
shouldn't be in the IPCC report; two papers Mann said he was willing to "redefine" the meaning of peer-review so they wouldn't have to be included.
If they don't present valid arguments questioning AGW then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them. Quit pussyfooting around. They're receiving tax dollars and they're trying to hide the evidence and avoid FOIA requests. If AGW is real the Truth with Out. They're afraid of dissenting opinions because they don't want to lose their money. Duh.
Now can we please move on and cancel that climate change committee meeting? Obama has better things to be doing.
Nah; I don't need to sully any of that. He resigned (we obviously do not have all of the information, because I honestly doubt that the conversation went "you said pussy twice!" and the guy went "GAH oh noes I quit! D:") because "concerned citizen" noticed that this was coming from a local school IP address. Now, this could have two variations: if it was an elementary school, it would seem strange. If it was either a middle or high school, well, it could have easily been from any student who felt like trolling.
So, Mr. concerned citizen forwarded a message along the lines of "this e-mail address from your IP address said "pussy" twice on my website". If it had been any student e-mail, that would be the end of it because the teachers just do not have student e-mail addresses on file (usually). If it had been the headmasters e-mail address, Mr. concerned citizen would have been duly ignored.
And then Mr. concerned citizen writes an article celebrating his ability to turn someone in for saying "pussy" twice. It's slightly difficult (and disturbing) to believe that Mr. concerned citizen had the local school IP address memorized to the point where a brief glance at the e-mail alert tipped him off that this was a serious issue.
It will be a delight to see if this becomes a normal thing. You know, adults posting on a not-child oriented website and being punished for using naughty words. I'm sure the teacher wasn't on a lunch break, or wasn't waiting for 1200 copies to print, or wasn't waiting for his students to finish a test, etc. Almost as atrocious as someone replying to slashdot on the clock, with their employers computer assets.
But maybe I just find the idea of being tracked to your job by a hypersensitive journalist a little off putting. Suppose he decides that he should moderate out disagreeable posts? He's well within his rights to do so, as a moderator.
I just find it ridiculous that the adults have greater difficulty coping with foul language than the kids. Seriously, it's a word. Delete it and warn him if you really feel threatened by it; you don't contact the organization it came from. How comical it would have been if he had called them instead..."Hello Mr. Rumples, I have a serious issue to address. You see, someone from within your school said pussy....twice. On the internet."
If there's one thing I've learned, its that simple integrity will take you a long way. You won't have to worry about getting bit like this. Is it silly he got in trouble for this? Yes. If he weren't swearing and were more polite in post would it have happened? Unlikely. After a). having been on slashdot enough to see there are people on the internet who just want to make you angry for no apparent reason and b). realizing it's ok somebody in the internet is wrong
I seek to temper my speech with much more grace and patience than before, rather than just exploding at somebody for being stupid. Works out better that way. I don't look as immature, and "a harsh word stirs up anger, but a king answer turns away wrath".
Slashdot Mirror
I think more and more people kept making dummy accounts to accumulate mod points and use them to shape discussions.
You can get the moderation formula down-- don't visit multiple times/day. Every 2-3 days seems to give me pretty consistent mod points.
The metamoderation I believe has you rate whether or not a users' unrelated comments "add to the discussion" and are helpful. I think this is how it works at least.
Ideally, people that do not mod fairly would post sucky comments. But obviously, this is not always the case. Most people may be perfectly safe modders until something like the AGW CRU scandal pops up-- if you noticed, in the first discussion we (slashdot as a whole in that thread) clearly determined that there was manipulation of evidence occurring, that this was not the scientific method, and the further attempts to hide the data/claim it was lost from a harddrive crash/delete it/etc. were plenty damning of AGW supports, and were supporting of the skeptic's desire for more peer review. What scientist doesn't allow people to see the original, un-"adjusted" data, etc. etc etc...
So in the first discussion we determined this; then there were several new stories posted about this later on, yet in these many comments such as "I looked at it and there is no evidence of data manipulation" got modded to 5, and many comments suggesting otherwise (and even those pointing back to the original, first entry where we determined what we did) were modded "troll" and "flamebait", to do just as you say, hide posts because the guy with mod points didn't agree.
Throwing the rating of other peoples' modding decisions (the original metamod scheme) doesn't help because then the people that metamod can do the same thing that they do if they want to mod someone down because they don't like the opinion-- they rate the +1 modding for a comment about a political ideology that they personally do not agree with, as being an incorrect/bad mod. Then the moderators that support questioning of AGW and mod up posts that bring up valid points, no longer receive moderation ability.
Now consider in all the above that the people most active on this site tend to be of a younger type-- myself included. As life progresses, we learn more things, our minds expand, and doing the same old just doesn't stimulate us like it used to. So we move on with life-- job, girlfriend->wife->kids, wham no time for slashdot anymore. So all the people that have balanced lives, that aren't political left/right extremists that troll the internet, in other words the people that we want to be doing moderation, aren't visiting. Of the few that do spend to dump their leisure time into slashdot, it's probably unlikely that they will receive mod points. So you can see the dilemma.
I also noticed an uptick bad mods when they started granting people 10 and 15 points to mod with. Maybe we should all go back to groups of 5 points, so that everybody would rather spend their points modding up posts that pick out faults with parent posts, rather than simply modding the parent post itself as flamebait or troll.
I think on the whole a much more involved moderation system would be needed. Have the meta-mods track how an individual moderator dumps his 5/10/15 points into a discussion. Of course have several people following any individual moderator, and have them all report back. Does the given moderator spend his points wisely? Is he using troll/flamebait to mod down things that are valid/non-inflammatory posts? Encourage those watching the moderator to not be lenient. If it's on the line as to whether the moderator is abusing points, go with abuse. Explain all this in the metamod section so it gets publicity, or create a link that says "read about the new metamod formula!". Many criminals decide not to commit the crime they desire to when they realize they won't be able to get away with it, and part of th
To each his own. I like glancing at my home town newspaper without committing to a big subscription. If the ads don't work, though I won't have that option.
If you really want to live in the past, here's the Wayback Machine's take on Slashdot:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.slashdot.org
Note, it didn't exist before ads and it won't exist without them.
Don't complain to us, complain to all the websites that implement ginormous banners that slide right over the article I'm reading and ask me DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A QUICK SURVEY!!!??? FREE PS3 IF YOU DO!!!
I don't mind google ads or picture ads, but the second they start implementing flash and slowing my browsing experience down, it all goes out the window.
There you go, some good bait to get the /. crowd all riled up.
To get it out of the way, we need the regulatory institution because the cable providers have a monopoly, are transitioning to digital only signals across the wire, and we don't have any way to set up our own HTPC to record TV shows for viewing/commercial skipping later.
I got money on the fact that this DNS server will be a part of their Android and Chrome OS services. You know, a default setting.
Eh. I don't care anymore. They want the data they can have it. Having thought about it for two years, I've realized they don't have the time to look into anybody in particular. It's all statistical data. The more they can disseminate that, the more they can provide ads that interest me, which means I'm more likely to buy the stuff, which means I get more free things from google.
nothing to see here, move along.
The same thing happens when China "cracks down." The media whines and opines for a while, but at the end of the day the rest of the world is powerless to stop these boneheads from abusing their own people. I feel for those affected, but at some point the people inside the Matrix need to do more to help themselves. Having the people outside complain really doesn't do a whole lot to make it better.
So if I'm a thug government, I know I can pretty much do what I want, especially if I have something the world wants (cheap labor/oil/etc).
As usual, the best way is to trade with them. Get them hooked on money and their businesses thriving and cutting out internet would set the entire country off at the regime.
If we could just get them to let us inspect their nuclear operations every 90 days then trade would be an option...
Yeah, if they're willing to gun down citizens in the street for protesting a bogus election
Well, this _is_ Iran that we're talking about here....
You must be new here [cough 7 digit UID cough].
We mod things up because they stimulate our thought.
When someone is wrong, you reply, and if you had things worth saying you get modded up, too. Making snide remarks about "can't believe you were modded up so far" does not aid in a low-blood-pressure-friendly discussion, and is rather silly when you think about it. Just politely point out they're wrong, let the modding do the b-slapping.
Anyways, you seem to misunderstand what modding is about. It is not about "you are right" or "you are wrong", but rather "do you add to the discussion"?
GP definitely added to the discussion.
I've got to give Epic credit, they've taken a lot of criticisms about developing for Unreal to heart and went miles beyond what anyone could have expected.
If they would have just spent 6 months tweaking the PC version of UT3 none of this would have been necessary. Practically the entire UT fanbase was excited about UT3 when they played the demo until they found out the demo was basically the final thing, User Interface and all.
10 years ago in UT99 the UI was capable of browsing for different servers while currently connected in a game. You could select a new one and start downloading the map in the background while continuing to play in the current game. ... well I would say y2k, but even stuff that came out 10 years ago was better than this.
With UT3, you have to stop what you're doing, disconnect from the current game (and hope you'll find a better game), get back to the server browser, pick a server, and if you need the map, watch it download. For the usual 40MB map, you're staring at the download screen for, say, at least a minute if you're on a standard DSL connection. In other words, lots of downtime.
They can run all the $5 Direct2Drive promos they want, but if the game is a pain to run, people just won't play it. The gameplay is great but the interface design is so
It won't be much if we just place a tax on all software sales.
Why things like this only happens in USA?
Why don't they just come here in Brazil, and offers also this kind of services to us...
It's a shame to Brazil, a potential country having to pay about 60U$ (R$ 100) to a damn megabyte internet access..
Pfff...
Because we have a free market.
Not for much longer mind you.
The hoards are finding they can just vote money to themselves, and feel justified in doing so because the guys at the top keep getting richer.
Wish people would just learn to be content with what they have. Even if Henry Ford takes all your money, you still get to drive around in a Ford. Would you rather have your money back and have to go horse-n-buggy?
I imagine the FCC will do most of the fighting for them.
I call shens on this article though. Smells of hype. No substance.
Related: I used to be able to call my Google Voice number with Skype-- but I can't anymore. I even have logs that show making and holding a connection for 35 seconds or so while I tested the forwarding. Not anymore. "Invalid number".
Ebay/Skype/PayPal-- can't stand them.
A global conspiracy amongst scientists.... to what end?
Money? Nah, couldn't be!
The short version of everything that's come out so far is: the leading climate scientists pushing AGW were lying left, right, and center, and there is absolutely no evidence, not even a little, to support global warming, let alone AGW. If you haven't done so already,
I've seen it, it shows nothing of the sort. It shows people having considerable difficulty in combining data sets in a consistent and reliable way. This is always a tricky problem. Your "data manipulation" could easily be correction factors for systematic errors or problems with particular data sets. But of course a private note that was never meant to be read is hardly going to be a complete, detailed and fully explained document, is it?
I can only assume that people are reading into it what they want to see.
So have I, and so can anyone that wants to. Here.
I invite you to peruse the last Slashdot entry about this.
OVERWHELMINGLY we determined there was definitely more going on than "considerable difficulty".
Hiding from FOIA requests, conspiring to lock out a publication that wasn't swallowing their bate (how dare a peer review journal ask difficult questions of AGW!).
Then we have Phil working to keep these two papers from being seen at the next IPCC meeting--
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers, Phil
If those 2 articles don't present valid arguments questioning AGW (and they do, I've read them and invite you to as well) then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them. Instead they're afraid of dissenting opinions because they don't want to lose their money. Duh.
Yessir, "considerable difficulty" indeed. Sure looks like science to me.
What a joke.
In my parents time it was global cooling, when I was younger it was a giant hole in the ozone above Australia caused by big evil America, a year ago it was Global Warming, and now it's become "Climate Change".
All a farce and an sleight of hand scheme to misuse taxpayer money. Notice CNN didn't once run a story on this. BBC did, credible enough for me.
"Considerable difficulty" indeed.
The President is the President, but there's a huge number of people pressuring congress to do things that aren't wise. The same idiots that thought that these policies were a good idea in the general populace are still there. And they're still fighting tooth and nail against any effort to make the country a better place, even against their own self interest. Sure that doesn't make it OK, but it's overly simplistic to assume that the people that were putting pressure on candidates to keep up these unwise policies have suddenly gone into hiding.
What a joke. An ephemeral "people" are pressuring Congress to take more power away from the people.
Right.
Obama wants the power just as much as his predecessor did.
He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.
Interesting. So in the space of just 50 years we've gone from "The buck stops here" to "I can't possibly be expected to know about EVERYTHING that my appointee's are up to"
Thought you would have caught up faster! :)
First words out of his mouth were "this economic problem I've inherited".
Sure, but Slashdot still facilitates the best discussion on the net.
But I think in general as people grow up and find better things to do they move on. So it's always going to be broken because the best people move on.
Can't imagine why contributors are leaving. It's become a cesspool of those who do nothing but revert legitimate edits (to get their edit count up) because it isn't from anyone in power worth brown-nosing to.
Like juries, the people who have enough time to become a real political power in the wikipedia game are not the people we want in charge of the contributions or making decisions.
Ah, I see...this must be why they're trying to keep these two papers from being included in the IPCC report; two papers Mann said he was willing to "redefine" the meaning of peer-review so they wouldn't have to be included.
If those two papers present valid arguments (which it sounds like they do) and the IPCC is unbiased in its review, then I can see why they would be afraid of the IPCC reading them.
This must be why Manning wrote
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers, Phil
If they don't present valid arguments questioning AGW then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them.
So basically they're receiving tax dollars and they're trying to hide the evidence/raw data and avoid FOIA requests.
Yes. Hiding from FOIA requests is well intentioned.
Ok. So don't hide from FOIA requests. Release the raw data and the truth will out. You know that's the amazing thing about mathematics. It doesn't lie.
Nor does a 2-trend graph (CO2&Temperature) is easy to interpret. But I suppose you're right. We're not educated enough to be able to interpret this for ourselves. We need people receiving large sums of taxpayer money to tell us whether or not we should keep giving them large sums of taxpayer money.
That they're not willing to do this, but are actively finding ways to keep from reporting the data for the FOIA.
That's all the evidence any rational individual needs.
"Hello there! I noticed that the hole you're drilling in our boat is likely to sink us. I wouldn't dream of stopping you, but why don't you think about slowing down a bit? It could benefit you too."
"So I propose a mandatory 10% fee on the sailors pay to repair this hole!
What's that? Oh no, I'm sorry, I can't allow you to see the hole yourself.
Also, anyone that questions whether there is a hole in the first place, will be promptly thrown overboard"
Sure sounds like the scientific method to me.
OK then there's no reason these two papers--
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
shouldn't be in the IPCC report; two papers Mann said he was willing to "redefine" the meaning of peer-review so they wouldn't have to be included.
If they don't present valid arguments questioning AGW then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them.
Quit pussyfooting around. They're receiving tax dollars and they're trying to hide the evidence and avoid FOIA requests.
If AGW is real the Truth with Out. They're afraid of dissenting opinions because they don't want to lose their money. Duh.
Now can we please move on and cancel that climate change committee meeting? Obama has better things to be doing.
*king=kind.
Nah; I don't need to sully any of that. He resigned (we obviously do not have all of the information, because I honestly doubt that the conversation went "you said pussy twice!" and the guy went "GAH oh noes I quit! D:") because "concerned citizen" noticed that this was coming from a local school IP address. Now, this could have two variations: if it was an elementary school, it would seem strange. If it was either a middle or high school, well, it could have easily been from any student who felt like trolling.
So, Mr. concerned citizen forwarded a message along the lines of "this e-mail address from your IP address said "pussy" twice on my website". If it had been any student e-mail, that would be the end of it because the teachers just do not have student e-mail addresses on file (usually). If it had been the headmasters e-mail address, Mr. concerned citizen would have been duly ignored.
And then Mr. concerned citizen writes an article celebrating his ability to turn someone in for saying "pussy" twice. It's slightly difficult (and disturbing) to believe that Mr. concerned citizen had the local school IP address memorized to the point where a brief glance at the e-mail alert tipped him off that this was a serious issue.
It will be a delight to see if this becomes a normal thing. You know, adults posting on a not-child oriented website and being punished for using naughty words. I'm sure the teacher wasn't on a lunch break, or wasn't waiting for 1200 copies to print, or wasn't waiting for his students to finish a test, etc. Almost as atrocious as someone replying to slashdot on the clock, with their employers computer assets.
But maybe I just find the idea of being tracked to your job by a hypersensitive journalist a little off putting. Suppose he decides that he should moderate out disagreeable posts? He's well within his rights to do so, as a moderator.
I just find it ridiculous that the adults have greater difficulty coping with foul language than the kids. Seriously, it's a word. Delete it and warn him if you really feel threatened by it; you don't contact the organization it came from. How comical it would have been if he had called them instead..."Hello Mr. Rumples, I have a serious issue to address. You see, someone from within your school said pussy....twice. On the internet."
If there's one thing I've learned, its that simple integrity will take you a long way. You won't have to worry about getting bit like this.
Is it silly he got in trouble for this? Yes. If he weren't swearing and were more polite in post would it have happened? Unlikely.
After
a). having been on slashdot enough to see there are people on the internet who just want to make you angry for no apparent reason and
b). realizing it's ok somebody in the internet is wrong
I seek to temper my speech with much more grace and patience than before, rather than just exploding at somebody for being stupid.
Works out better that way. I don't look as immature, and "a harsh word stirs up anger, but a king answer turns away wrath".