Speaking of mistakes: last summer, there was a big furor in Europe over some mastermind criminal who was being implicated via DNA matching in all kinds of crimes: murders, car thefts, etc. The DNA popped up in France, in Eastern Europe in Germany - literally, all over the place. Newspapers started to talk about some sort of supervillain, able to commit crimes at will and escape undetected every time, and with the financial means and independence to constantly travel through Europe.
Turned out that the swabs used to collect the evidence from the crime scene all came from the same source, and had been contaminated by a manufacturing technician.
Now this is contamination during what is supposed to be a sterile manufacturing process. I can't imagine what the contamination risks are that come from regular use.
Very true. At this point, most climate scientists have moved on. For a start on the numbers behind climate change, you can start with any of the technical papers of the first IPCC, and go through the same process.
I'll make it easy for you. I'll point you to one technical paper: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers_climate_change_and_water.htm Go read it. Now go read every single paper that it references. Then go read the references that are referenced in the references. I think you'll be up to about a hundred by then. If that's not enough, feel free to read every paper published by the authors of that paper.
And that's just what you get by starting with a single technical paper.
Please explain how everyone of the thousands of papers published in peer-review journals failed the Scientific Method. Please. I'm not sure if you'll be done within the next 100 years or so, but I'll be happy to wait.
Actually, 3) has been established multiple times. It has both a working theory for its mechanism, and confirmation from data collection. And for the sake of precision: not all warming is caused by the CO2 increase, but the CO2 increase is responsible for the most increase. Yes, solar forcing is part of that increase, but accounts for less than CO2. 4) Would be the conclusion from 1-3.
As for 5), you're right, it's bunk. The general consensus is indeed that it failed in creating any meaningful framework that could help with CO2 emissions.
Ahem - since when is running a reason to be shot by police? I mean, I've been stopped by a cop before because I was running on my way to the bus (in Irvine, CA - if you know the place, you know that only the immigrants and the poor do not drive, and those have no business there anyway), but I'm sure glad he just asked me a few questions, instead of just shooting me. Or maybe I should be shot because I'm going on a late night run?
To summarize: shooting people because they run is about as weak an excuse as they can give - just slightly above shooting someone because they were loitering.
No, it's actually encrypted. The problem is that the command to unencrypt the data is always the same. In other words, a small little widget can sit between the password program and the encrypted disk, and just send the right command string, regardless of what password was entered. Instant decryption.
But still - why do something like try to reinvent crypto, when there's an open format? The license for Truecrypt even allows for commercial use.
Can anyone explain to me why the disk manufacturers chose to reinvent the wheel, instead of using Truecrypt? As far as I know, Truecrypt encryption hasn't been broken yet.
The Holy Grail is that all computing devices become essentially XBoxes, with even more lock-down: a completely controlled platform that allows for zero customization that doesn't involve going to the source and paying someone money. Yes, even the Xbox can be modded, but they're trying to make it even more secure.
That generally requires some form of hardware implementation, because people might be able to click install, but they're unlikely to take out a chip and solder something else in - or even find someone with the resources to create a new chip that bypasses the controls.
That's the beauty of references - I don't need your opinion on what is a relevant reference or not. I can make up my own mind. And so far, you've been contradicted several times by others with a whole hell of a lot more authority than "I know Sam Knott".
Let's say, for example, you're wrongly added to a list of international child molesters, and when you get to Thailand, they arrest you.
Who is "they"? Certainly not Interpol, they don't have the authority to do any of that. That would be the local Thai police. Who is going to prosecute you? Again, not Interpol, that's not their job. It would be the Thai prosecutor, who has to provide some evidence. And as far as I can tell "This DB no one has access to says he's a perp" is not a good reason for conviction. So Interpol can say all they want, it is still local law enforcement that does all the work. If there's a screw-up, blame local law-enforcement.
Right now, you're really flying on empty with your scenarios.
Well the thing is that a non-trivial amount of people on Slashdot aren't software engineers or the like. Many of them are unemployed college student types. They've never had a real job, or have had nothing but a menial job. They haven't really given their position much thought, it is just a kind of general parroting of the "Information wants to be free, man!" slogan without real consideration. They've never had to support themselves so the consideration of how one does so hasn't really entered their mind.
Got a source for that? Or did you just make that up, because it supports your current view?
If Cory sees his financial future in people having his written works without paying for them, good luck. Freedom is nice, but eating is nicer. Freedom can be enjoyed a lot better with a full belly.
Absolutely. Genetic taxonomies work great, because you have a simple definition that can be applied to everybody and comes up with a result that works.
However, when people talk about race, they never talk about a genetic taxonomy: they always talk about an appearance taxonomy. Flat nose, dark skin, curly hair: black. Blond hair, blue eyes, white skin: white. Etc. But that only classifies a fraction of the world's population, and means nothing outside of appearance.
Heh. Looks like I was indeed wrong on sickle-cell anemia in the US. However, the original statement is still wrong: blacks do not share a uniform likelihood of coming down with the disease. On top of that, it isn't even restricted to black people. As a result, race is not a predictor for, or even correlated with, the disease.
Here's the problem. If you can't order every single human into one race or another, your model is flawed. If you're forced to resort to mixes of races, well, then you don't have any distinct race left.
Race concepts fall apart once actual taxonomic principles are applied to them. Your examples actually illustrate the problem quite nicely: not nearly all asians have problems with milk - specifically the Japanese the do. Indians (from the Indian subcontinent in Asia) do not. Blacks do not have a higher tendency for sickle-cell anemia, a certain group of people in Africa do. Blacks in the US do not have that trait.
How much does it suck to be so wrong? Your cognitive dissonance must be at a record high.
Chaos theory is not inherently unpredictable - it is quite predictable. The problem is that prediction cannot be done an arbitrary amount of time in the future, but instead has to be done iteratively. Furthermore, there's a difference between the difficulty of predicting the location of a particular O2 molecule 2 weeks in the future, and the statistical prediction of the average kinetic energy of O2 molecules 2 weeks in the future.
in my experienced - I'm a physical chemist doing atomic resolution condensed phase computer modeling. It's so common that I am troubled when the first analysis gives the answer I expected. I likely spend more time looking for errors when the answer makes sense the first go through. Really.
This. Getting everything right the first time is like winning the lottery - you don't believe it, and you shouldn't. People doing experiments is a messy thing. Isolating variables is difficult, and much more difficult than just making something happen.
But still, I do believe that genetic differences affect what we are and that genetic differences can be attributed to where our genes came from.
The theory that race has nothing to do with intelligence has nothing to do with political correctness, and all with science: specifically, the scientific discovery that the taxonomy of human races is not definitive, not specific and has no basis in genetics. Which in turn means that the ggp's assertion that race was a statistically significant factor in their research means that their research was utter crap to begin with.
So let me ask you this then: what makes you think that race is the same as genetics, or that you can even reliably a race? I mean, outside of some outdated and non-scientific notions of physiognomy and phrenology?
I should have been a bit more nuanced in my argument. I'm not against eminent domain in all cases. There are definitely some situations where it is the proper approach.
However, in Kelo, the idea was abused and became nothing but "people with money can use the government to force others to give them more money". I expect to find that behavior in China, but not in the US. I was shocked that there wasn't more of an upheaval about this.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of mistakes: last summer, there was a big furor in Europe over some mastermind criminal who was being implicated via DNA matching in all kinds of crimes: murders, car thefts, etc. The DNA popped up in France, in Eastern Europe in Germany - literally, all over the place. Newspapers started to talk about some sort of supervillain, able to commit crimes at will and escape undetected every time, and with the financial means and independence to constantly travel through Europe.
Turned out that the swabs used to collect the evidence from the crime scene all came from the same source, and had been contaminated by a manufacturing technician.
Now this is contamination during what is supposed to be a sterile manufacturing process. I can't imagine what the contamination risks are that come from regular use.
Ah - you mean, like the Japanese from the 60s and 70s? By that logic, we should see a CNOOC sign on top of Rockefeller Plaza by 2020.
At least credit xkcd when you rip-off its comments: http://xkcd.com/684/
Flamebait, really? The mod should read up on Aborigene history - especially the last 200 years or so. It's the unfortunate truth.
Very true. At this point, most climate scientists have moved on. For a start on the numbers behind climate change, you can start with any of the technical papers of the first IPCC, and go through the same process.
I'll make it easy for you. I'll point you to one technical paper: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers_climate_change_and_water.htm
Go read it. Now go read every single paper that it references. Then go read the references that are referenced in the references. I think you'll be up to about a hundred by then. If that's not enough, feel free to read every paper published by the authors of that paper.
And that's just what you get by starting with a single technical paper.
Simple, isn't it? I'll be here waiting.
Please explain how everyone of the thousands of papers published in peer-review journals failed the Scientific Method. Please. I'm not sure if you'll be done within the next 100 years or so, but I'll be happy to wait.
Actually, 3) has been established multiple times. It has both a working theory for its mechanism, and confirmation from data collection. And for the sake of precision: not all warming is caused by the CO2 increase, but the CO2 increase is responsible for the most increase. Yes, solar forcing is part of that increase, but accounts for less than CO2. 4) Would be the conclusion from 1-3.
As for 5), you're right, it's bunk. The general consensus is indeed that it failed in creating any meaningful framework that could help with CO2 emissions.
Ahem - since when is running a reason to be shot by police? I mean, I've been stopped by a cop before because I was running on my way to the bus (in Irvine, CA - if you know the place, you know that only the immigrants and the poor do not drive, and those have no business there anyway), but I'm sure glad he just asked me a few questions, instead of just shooting me. Or maybe I should be shot because I'm going on a late night run?
To summarize: shooting people because they run is about as weak an excuse as they can give - just slightly above shooting someone because they were loitering.
No, it's actually encrypted. The problem is that the command to unencrypt the data is always the same. In other words, a small little widget can sit between the password program and the encrypted disk, and just send the right command string, regardless of what password was entered. Instant decryption.
But still - why do something like try to reinvent crypto, when there's an open format? The license for Truecrypt even allows for commercial use.
Can anyone explain to me why the disk manufacturers chose to reinvent the wheel, instead of using Truecrypt? As far as I know, Truecrypt encryption hasn't been broken yet.
The Holy Grail is that all computing devices become essentially XBoxes, with even more lock-down: a completely controlled platform that allows for zero customization that doesn't involve going to the source and paying someone money. Yes, even the Xbox can be modded, but they're trying to make it even more secure.
That generally requires some form of hardware implementation, because people might be able to click install, but they're unlikely to take out a chip and solder something else in - or even find someone with the resources to create a new chip that bypasses the controls.
That's the beauty of references - I don't need your opinion on what is a relevant reference or not. I can make up my own mind. And so far, you've been contradicted several times by others with a whole hell of a lot more authority than "I know Sam Knott".
Let's say, for example, you're wrongly added to a list of international child molesters, and when you get to Thailand, they arrest you.
Who is "they"? Certainly not Interpol, they don't have the authority to do any of that. That would be the local Thai police. Who is going to prosecute you? Again, not Interpol, that's not their job. It would be the Thai prosecutor, who has to provide some evidence. And as far as I can tell "This DB no one has access to says he's a perp" is not a good reason for conviction. So Interpol can say all they want, it is still local law enforcement that does all the work. If there's a screw-up, blame local law-enforcement.
Right now, you're really flying on empty with your scenarios.
Well the thing is that a non-trivial amount of people on Slashdot aren't software engineers or the like. Many of them are unemployed college student types. They've never had a real job, or have had nothing but a menial job. They haven't really given their position much thought, it is just a kind of general parroting of the "Information wants to be free, man!" slogan without real consideration. They've never had to support themselves so the consideration of how one does so hasn't really entered their mind.
Got a source for that? Or did you just make that up, because it supports your current view?
If Cory sees his financial future in people having his written works without paying for them, good luck. Freedom is nice, but eating is nicer. Freedom can be enjoyed a lot better with a full belly.
His books are freely available for download. To get a direct example link: http://craphound.com/littlebrother/Cory_Doctorow_-_Little_Brother_Dutch.epub. Go have fun.
Absolutely. Genetic taxonomies work great, because you have a simple definition that can be applied to everybody and comes up with a result that works.
However, when people talk about race, they never talk about a genetic taxonomy: they always talk about an appearance taxonomy. Flat nose, dark skin, curly hair: black. Blond hair, blue eyes, white skin: white. Etc. But that only classifies a fraction of the world's population, and means nothing outside of appearance.
Heh. Looks like I was indeed wrong on sickle-cell anemia in the US. However, the original statement is still wrong: blacks do not share a uniform likelihood of coming down with the disease. On top of that, it isn't even restricted to black people. As a result, race is not a predictor for, or even correlated with, the disease.
Japanese is not a race. Scandinavian is not a race. Somalian is not a race.
You're confusing nationality with race. Kinda the issue Hitler had.
Here's the problem. If you can't order every single human into one race or another, your model is flawed. If you're forced to resort to mixes of races, well, then you don't have any distinct race left.
Race concepts fall apart once actual taxonomic principles are applied to them. Your examples actually illustrate the problem quite nicely: not nearly all asians have problems with milk - specifically the Japanese the do. Indians (from the Indian subcontinent in Asia) do not. Blacks do not have a higher tendency for sickle-cell anemia, a certain group of people in Africa do. Blacks in the US do not have that trait.
How much does it suck to be so wrong? Your cognitive dissonance must be at a record high.
Chaos theory is not inherently unpredictable - it is quite predictable. The problem is that prediction cannot be done an arbitrary amount of time in the future, but instead has to be done iteratively. Furthermore, there's a difference between the difficulty of predicting the location of a particular O2 molecule 2 weeks in the future, and the statistical prediction of the average kinetic energy of O2 molecules 2 weeks in the future.
in my experienced - I'm a physical chemist doing atomic resolution condensed phase computer modeling. It's so common that I am troubled when the first analysis gives the answer I expected. I likely spend more time looking for errors when the answer makes sense the first go through. Really.
This. Getting everything right the first time is like winning the lottery - you don't believe it, and you shouldn't. People doing experiments is a messy thing. Isolating variables is difficult, and much more difficult than just making something happen.
As opposed to a random blogger? Really? Be careful throwing around the authority argument, it might come back to bite you.
But still, I do believe that genetic differences affect what we are and that genetic differences can be attributed to where our genes came from.
The theory that race has nothing to do with intelligence has nothing to do with political correctness, and all with science: specifically, the scientific discovery that the taxonomy of human races is not definitive, not specific and has no basis in genetics. Which in turn means that the ggp's assertion that race was a statistically significant factor in their research means that their research was utter crap to begin with.
So let me ask you this then: what makes you think that race is the same as genetics, or that you can even reliably a race? I mean, outside of some outdated and non-scientific notions of physiognomy and phrenology?
I should have been a bit more nuanced in my argument. I'm not against eminent domain in all cases. There are definitely some situations where it is the proper approach.
However, in Kelo, the idea was abused and became nothing but "people with money can use the government to force others to give them more money". I expect to find that behavior in China, but not in the US. I was shocked that there wasn't more of an upheaval about this.