Given your exposé of the facts on Slashdot, and the way you describe your colleagues and your own understanding of stats, I would say there is a 90% chance you are wrong and they are right. Or maybe 95%.
I think after quashing a hundred or so of this type of allegation, only to find out it was absolute rubbish put about for propaganda, one quite rightly gets tired of chasing down the filibustering allegations of the tin foil hat denialist brigade. The obviously fervent prejudices of this "Institute", plus the precise timing, sets off enough alarms to warrant skipping further analysis. As other people have said here, show me the top-tier peer-reviewed climate science journal article if you want to be noticed. If you believe there is some massive global collusion amongst scientists preventing such articles from being published, then you know very little about scientists (or global politics for that matter).
"Can you cite some research which isn't based on CRU's Hockey Stick graph which has been debunked"
Can you cite some research about atoms that isn't based on the 'plum pudding' model of atoms, which has been debunked?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
The point is that the climate models evolve over time. The word "based on" that you use is ambiguous - we must assume you mean 'refined/evolved from'.
Example of an improved climate model:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20091009-00
There is a natural variability that correlates to several known processes. There have been dips and peaks of greater magnitude since the start of the industry and beyond. The long term clear is very though;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
and fits well with the increasingly accurate climate models that have been refined over time to include these know processes.
This is more about making users use F-Spot, an unpopular and feature-deficient piece of software to say the least. This is probably more about sneaking more mono into Gnome than anything else.
"I think at the starting point of it you need manufacturers of both hardware and software to devise technology that makes it difficult or impossible for people to be defrauded,"
Because obviously we have already done that for telephones.
"is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?"
Another thing that annoys me is the diversity of animals and plants on Earth. It makes it so hard to study them all. Isn't it time to concentrate on the consolidation and standardisation living species in general?
"So for you academics out there, be careful. Groklaw notes this is interesting considering some of its results quote 2001: A Space Odyssey or Douglas Adams. Claiming copyright on that material may be a bold move."
You can copyright something if it quotes someone else - people do it all the time (*especially* academics). The question is whether it is (a) a "work" in the copyright law sense and (b) fair use of the material. I would posit that the W|A engine is putting together a document in response to a query. Short quotes are probably fair use. I'm not sure who the "creator" or the work is though:-) Interesting...
"Scala looks and feels like Java with a tiny bit of Python thrown in for good measure."
Then you haven't used it properly. Scala is fundamentally a functional programming language with OO. You can also work in procedural manner , in which case, yes, it is much the same as Java.. but then you are missing out on some really nice features.
"Having been on the corporate side of this argument, and having to deal with the consequences of an open work environment, I have to say I completely disagree with you."
I'm a company director and in my opinion a good manager is focussed on good project outcomes, not trying to screw every last second out of the lives of its hapless employees. Happy employees with a good work-life balance is the key to productive outcomes, not to mention a better world. If that means using the phone and email for personal messages, in moderation, then I'm fine with that - in fact, I encourage it.
The "equipment" with which you deficate is entirely your own, and thus you are obviously entitled to your own level of pivacy. [sic]
As are your communications with your family, friends, union reps, and doctors (even company ones).
Nevertheless, your comparison is just plain rediculus and does not warrant a place in this discussion. [sic]
It amazes me that so many people conclude that because the company owns the computer and/or network, then they have the right to do anything with them. The atmosphere of Protestant work ethic is palpable! There are these little things called laws and ethics, not to mention human decency, that you seem to be forgetting. The company owns the toilets too, so do you conclude that they have the rights to install cameras there? Think about what you are saying.
Cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere are several orders of magnitute more powerfull than the LHC so I don't think repeatability is a valid criticism. Power alone doesn't characterise an interaction. Look at neutrinos versus quarks for example.
I have a great deal of faith that the LHC is not a doomesday machine, and that faith is also the reason why I know the sun will rise again in the morning but can never prove it. Like I said, I have nothing against science itself - I'm a huge supporter (to digress a little, in fact a lot of people believe that the sun will rise in the morning without resorting to science!). But even, so, the ol' sun-rising-in-the-morning experiment has been performed a lot more times than the LHC one. In reality, I too think that is very unlikely that the LHC is a doomsday machine. However, is it unlikely enough to risk the planet when balanced with the benefits? Its a question worth asking. Even if you and I say yes, I still don't think its grounds for people ridiculing those that take a different view (not that *you* did, but others here have), which is what I was originally getting at: the arrogance of some scientists and science aficionados. Its just another form of intolerance.
This sort of particle collision must happen all the time in the sun or near its rays
we probably don't have to worry about those things
Huh? Who here is using science like a bible? Is this rant related to the topic of discussion, or just sort of an extracurricular? You are - right there. Its so reassuring that we "probably wont have to worry about these things" because you are so sure that the conditions inside the LHC are exactly the same as occur in near the sun. Of course, the surface of the sun is so benign we should not be worried, huh?
The scientific method and the resulting scientific belief system is not the problem here. Its people that treat science like its a religion: like an absolute truth, that are the problem. In fact, nobody really know what will happen when the machine is switched on. If they did, why would they need to do the experiment in the first place? I have the greatest respect for science - I'm a PhD qualified particle physicst myself (although no longer practicing). I don't have a lot of respect for arrogant scientists blithely telling us everything is safe when history keeps proving them wrong over and over again, or for people that use science like a bible to bash people with.
"Although he is still young, Windows Vista Sensei is said to possess different strengths and confidence not known to anyone."
Take out the word "Sensei" and this quite accurate.:-)
Honestly, this sums up everything that is lame about Microsofty Windows and the developers thereof.
Slashdot Mirror
Currently, as a result of back room deals between the government and the Christian lobby, Australia has a moral anchor rather than a moral compass.
Given your exposé of the facts on Slashdot, and the way you describe your colleagues and your own understanding of stats, I would say there is a 90% chance you are wrong and they are right. Or maybe 95%.
I think after quashing a hundred or so of this type of allegation, only to find out it was absolute rubbish put about for propaganda, one quite rightly gets tired of chasing down the filibustering allegations of the tin foil hat denialist brigade. The obviously fervent prejudices of this "Institute", plus the precise timing, sets off enough alarms to warrant skipping further analysis. As other people have said here, show me the top-tier peer-reviewed climate science journal article if you want to be noticed. If you believe there is some massive global collusion amongst scientists preventing such articles from being published, then you know very little about scientists (or global politics for that matter).
"Can you cite some research which isn't based on CRU's Hockey Stick graph which has been debunked" Can you cite some research about atoms that isn't based on the 'plum pudding' model of atoms, which has been debunked? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model The point is that the climate models evolve over time. The word "based on" that you use is ambiguous - we must assume you mean 'refined/evolved from'. Example of an improved climate model: http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20091009-00
There is a natural variability that correlates to several known processes. There have been dips and peaks of greater magnitude since the start of the industry and beyond. The long term clear is very though; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ and fits well with the increasingly accurate climate models that have been refined over time to include these know processes.
This is more about making users use F-Spot, an unpopular and feature-deficient piece of software to say the least. This is probably more about sneaking more mono into Gnome than anything else.
Almost as convincing as a "scientific" anti-wrinkle cream advertisement .. but not quite. Perhaps you need to look prettier?
Mozilla is just miffed because they didn't think of it first. Now they have set themselves up to look like hypocrites if they follow suit.
Because obviously we have already done that for telephones.
Heh. Actually I wrote those .. thanks for the attribution swanzilla.
"we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer"
Would you like to purchase a parachute, sir?
Another thing that annoys me is the diversity of animals and plants on Earth. It makes it so hard to study them all. Isn't it time to concentrate on the consolidation and standardisation living species in general?
"So for you academics out there, be careful. Groklaw notes this is interesting considering some of its results quote 2001: A Space Odyssey or Douglas Adams. Claiming copyright on that material may be a bold move." You can copyright something if it quotes someone else - people do it all the time (*especially* academics). The question is whether it is (a) a "work" in the copyright law sense and (b) fair use of the material. I would posit that the W|A engine is putting together a document in response to a query. Short quotes are probably fair use. I'm not sure who the "creator" or the work is though :-) Interesting ...
"Scala looks and feels like Java with a tiny bit of Python thrown in for good measure." Then you haven't used it properly. Scala is fundamentally a functional programming language with OO. You can also work in procedural manner , in which case, yes, it is much the same as Java .. but then you are missing out on some really nice features.
"Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?" Sheer genius!
The big letters mean it MUST be TRUE.
The Flat Earth Society uses that same tactic to try to dismiss mainstream science as "religion".
It amazes me that so many people conclude that because the company owns the computer and/or network, then they have the right to do anything with them. The atmosphere of Protestant work ethic is palpable! There are these little things called laws and ethics, not to mention human decency, that you seem to be forgetting. The company owns the toilets too, so do you conclude that they have the rights to install cameras there? Think about what you are saying.
The scientific method and the resulting scientific belief system is not the problem here. Its people that treat science like its a religion: like an absolute truth, that are the problem. In fact, nobody really know what will happen when the machine is switched on. If they did, why would they need to do the experiment in the first place? I have the greatest respect for science - I'm a PhD qualified particle physicst myself (although no longer practicing). I don't have a lot of respect for arrogant scientists blithely telling us everything is safe when history keeps proving them wrong over and over again, or for people that use science like a bible to bash people with.
"Although he is still young, Windows Vista Sensei is said to possess different strengths and confidence not known to anyone." Take out the word "Sensei" and this quite accurate. :-)
Honestly, this sums up everything that is lame about Microsofty Windows and the developers thereof.
"Someday, all of us will be the stuff of history and legend." According to some, that will be around about 2030. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity