As a matter of fact, yes, they have. Check out some of the UN surveys. If I remember correctly, they even break some of the results down by region. And I could be wrong, but I believe the economist did some global surveys on some aspects of global warming a few years ago as well. This is just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's more, buried around the 'net somewhere.
Got a link?
Google is your friend.
It's somewhat a waste of time to try and reason with idiots.
You don't agree with him, therefore he's an idiot. Because he's an idiot, you can't reason with him, so you won't try. Good one.
At one point in history, people believed the world was flat. They wern't idiots.
Back when steam-powered rail was being developed, some of the leading scientists of the day swore that rail travel over 35 mph was impossible, becuase at that speed all the air in the front of the car would rush to the back and the people in front would suffocate. They wern't idiots.
There are all sorts of examples throughout history where people have been wrong without being idiots. And this precisely the sort of characterization he's referring to when he talks about the attempt to enforce a group-think and political correctness - "scientific consensus", as he knows and defines it (the definition of which you were given, apparently without understanding) - about global warming. All you're doing here is proving him correct.
(Skipping parts, because this is becoming tiresome)
And once again, you are taking it on faith that he is only talking about certain environmentalists, while reading the article demonstrates that he is talking about all environmentalists.
For the last time..... from the TFA. It couldn't possibly be clearer.
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.
If you can read that, and STILL try to claim that "while reading the article demonstrates that he is talking about all environmentalists", then one of us has a reading comprehension problem.. and I'm pretty sure it's not me. He couldn't *possibly* be more specific and unambiguous.
I think this pretty well sums up this entire thread. You've made up your mind, you've read into the article what you want to read, and there's absolutely no possibility in your mind that you are anything other than 100% correct. And anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot, and therefore not worth talking to.
Well, call me an idiot. For myself, I'm going to conclude that his ideas about group-think and political correctness surrounding the debate are correct, and that you are proof that he's right.
I may be an idiot, but fortunately I'm smart enough to realize when I'm flogging a dead horse.
Frankly, no. Among educated and informed people, perhaps. But the majority of the population? Not particularly confident in that.
frankly, yes.... unless you're looking at polls that are vastly different than the polls that I've seen on the subject.
Just look at all the people who think along the lines of "It was colder this year than last, so global warming can't be happening"
So explain to them - without the hysteronics - why one doesn't preclude the other.
In any case Klaus appears to be unsure of that himself, because he says:
Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
Firstly, the "loud minority" in this case would actually be the "anti" global warming crowd who like to scream and rant about the global warming debate, rather than having a rational discussion. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense. Gravity and the laws of physics are scientific consensus - but those are hardly views perpetrated by a "loud minority."
This is where context & understanding is everything. "Scientific consensus" does NOT mean to you, what it means to him - and what he's talking about is not what you're commenting on. Again, a little background.
The phrase, "Scientific consensus" has a different meaning in the Soviet world he grew up in. The Soviets believed that everything should be suborned to the needs of the state, and should be used to further the revolution - history, politics.. AND SCIENCE. When people in the state had achieved "scientific consensus" on a subject, it means that they had come to decisions on how best to interpret data TO BEST FURTHER THE REVOLUTION.
If you want an example.... Take a look at the debates that went on for years in the Ukraine, on whether or not seeds for certain plants should be planted shallow or deep. Khrushchev - always more of a pragmatist than a demagogue - looked to western agricultural practices, and saw that these crops were planed deeply in the west, with wonderful yields as a result. But the Academy of Sciences had looked at other evidence, involving planting practices in Siberia, where conditions were greatly different from those in the Ukraine. When confronted by the evidence of western success, and even in the face of crop failures in the Ukraine in the first few years, the western experience was discarded. Shallow planing continued, because it was a SOVIET solution, developed democratically in accordance with Soviet teachings - a "scientific consensus" had been reached. To admit failure and adopt the western practices would have been to admit failure of the Soviet system, which would have been a setback for the revolution.... and this could not be allowed to happen. So for the next 10/15 years, crops in the Ukraine were planted closer to the surface than they should have been, and instead of being a breadbasket, the Ukraine became a basketcase.
Oh, yeah.... would you like to hazard a guess as to what happened to those that ignored the "scientific consensus" and planted their crops deeply?
And that is what is so insane about his article. He has this strange idea that global warming advocates are opposed to democracy, and want to start a totalitarian regime and send people to re-education camps. What an utter fabrication.
Not at all. First, a correction I've already made for you - his article concerns aggressive environmentalism, not environmentalism in general. Second - given the tone & tenor of the debate, it's not difficult at all to see massive parallels between the "pro" side and Soviet attempts at imposing group-think. He even makes that point directly himself:
The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted
Now, guess which of us lost more respect in the eyes of any readers.;)
Let's be totally honest here - if the #1 item on my agenda was respect, I wouldn't have started commenting supporting TFA author in the first place.
Let me try to clarify. There are hysterical people among environmentalists, yes. But Mr. Klaus was talking about scientists, not stone age environmental hysterics.
You're assuming there's no intersection of those two groups. Not, as we've seen in this debate, a valid assumption - for either side.
Scientists present facts.
That's not being disputed. What *is* being disputed is how those facts are presented to non-scientists.
If your car breaks down, do you let a mechanic decide what is wrong with it, or do you take a poll among all passing pedestrians and then ask the mechanic to work on what they decide?
Generally, I'd take it to a mechanic (if I had one - I've been walking or taking public transit for about 25 years now)
But then again, I'm sure we all know horror stories of people who had their car worked on by the next door neighbour's kid because he SOUNDED like he knew what he was talking about. And I'm equally sure that we've all gone into technical help forums from time to time and been amazed at some of the absolute horseshit that people have believed, simply because the person spewing knew the buzzwords.
Since global warming is a difficult subject, shouldn't decisions about it be made by those who understand the matter?
That would involve scientists making decisons about difficult subjects that THEY have no understanding of.... like politics, economics, international relations, etc. That's what the politicians are for - it's THEIR job.
The scientists should be explaining that information to the scientists.
In most western governments, there is some form of lobbiest registry where people who wish to talk to the government with the hopes of influencing public policy are required to register, so that everybody knows the agenda they're trying to push. So that their biases are out in the open, and their statements can be weighed accordingly.
Why should scientists be any different, when they try to influence public policy?
"I'm a scientist" works in the lab when you're conducting the experiment. But it doesn't even work when you try to publish - that's why peer review exists, to try to eliminate that bullcrap. And it SURE as hell doesn't exist when they take on the role of lobbyist.
And here I thought we are past the time when the Pope decided whether the earth was round or not.
I don't see that TFA author is trying to tell people what to think, and I'd love to know where you see if, if you do.
Even hinting that the discussion is between Oil company execs and presidents of "People for the Full Eradication of Technology and Man" is an ad hominem distortion of facts. Claiming that both sides have biases is an ad hominem argument.
No, actually, it's not. Pointing out that people on the extremes of both sides of the argument (the oil company exec, and the president of an organization I made up because I couldn't think of a real one off the top of my head) have biases isn't attacking any person or group, nor is it dismissing them out of hand. It's simple objective reality.
You know why the scientists look so hopping mad, and thus biased? Because they are forced to argue about measurable facts with people who have spent their whole careers arguing about personal inclinations. All a politician knows about discussions is that if you harp on long enough about your view, the other one might get tired and give in.
Ummmm....... Wow
In politics, all facts are incongruous and thus useless. How do you compare the suffering of single mothers with access to foreign markets? So, obviously, politicians are not equipped for scientific debate.
And, since it worked for Cato, let me reiterate: Lowering emissions will lead to advances in technology and thus a higher standard of living, with better gadgets and less pollution. The political opponents in the global warming debate are merely opposed to making investments into new technology and thus doomed to bankruptcy in the long run like any company that refuses to invest and innovate. Big oil and coal are already heavily dependent on government subsidies.
Wow II - the sequel.
I think you and the AC that just posted to this thread a few minites ago should get together for beer and debate it between yourselves. You're both perfect examples of the extremes in the debate that makes everybody's eyes glaze over and dismiss the topic entirely. And just so that there's no doubt..... Yes, I think you're an idiot. And this *is* an ad hominem dismissle of you and your arguments.
Sorry, there is really no way around it. If you want to decide whether the science is correct or not, you have to understand it.
Agreed
It doesn't help if you know any potential bias of the presenter. Yes, by necessity this means that non-scientists really have no objective way of evaluating climate science. Hence their views on the matter can be ignored as they are not based on the science but rather something else (whatever that is).
You are wrong here on SO many levels. The reality is this.... it doesn't matter *what* the hell scientists come up with, for or against, on *any* topic. The politicians are the ones who are going to be implimenting the measures to take advantage of what's found, control it if it's dangerous, or fix it if it's broken. The LAST thing you want to do is dismiss them because they "can't understand it". And that is precisely why an accurate understanding is so essential.
You're also wrong in that you have to be able to understand the data in order to understand the science. I now how an internal combustion works... but there's no way I can build one. I don't have the background. I don't know the equations, detailed physics, thermodynamics, etc. But I can still describe it to my daughter - and SHE can understand it.
You don't need to be a domain expert on something in order to have a reasonably accurate working understanding of the field, or knowledge of basic principals involved. The job of the scientists in this case is to ensure that the people who make the decisions HAVE that required understanding.
gotcha.... I stand corrected. I gotta learn to NOT post at 4am..... it's causing a lot of pissyness in the global warming article just down the hall:-)
It actually doesn't sound like you read the article at all. About the only thing it says about avoiding the politicization of science is in a small dot-point down the bottom. But he spends most of the article politicizing science, and coming up with straw men.
He wasn't politicizing science. He was politicizing the people who TALK about the science... specifically, their tactics and HOW they talk about it.
But apparently some people don't even both reading what people write, and just make up their own interpretation. Did you miss 90% of the article?
Now, there's an ad hominem for you if I ever saw one.
Actually, you were... see point above. You made it sound like he was merely trying to depoliticize science.
And I think he IS trying to depoliticise the science.
But you agree with all that other bullcrap he wrote? Wow. What makes you agree with outlandish trolling?
The vast majority of it, yes - and for those bits I *don't* agree with, I can certainly understand why he says what he does... and it has nothing to do with FUD, on his part or mine.
Let me try to explain it to you this way, and give you some context of where he's coming from. And I'll even give you some background on me, so you know MY bias. You can use it to dismiss what I say out of hand, as you seem to think he wants to..... or maybe it will help you interpret what I have been saying, and what HE has been saying, a little better. Knowing how to read is one thing.... understanding what you read, and what is being said, is another.
I spent the cold war in an intelligence trade in the Navy - that's where I learned to speak Russian, and where the name Gorshkov comes from. After the navy, I took an honours degree in Soviet & East European Studies. My thesis was on how the Soviet Union used control of sources to information and information itself to control the population. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with global warming, I grant you that... but it does give me a feel for where he's coming from, and what he's trying to say.
For me, the key point in the entire article is this: As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. (emphasis mine, to separate what he's talking about from environmentalism in general).
The man has lived his entire life under the yoke of communism. Enforced group think. If you don't believe what you're told, you get to move to Siberia.... if you're lucky and don't wind up in a re-education camp, or just hauled out and shot. This was his reality. This is how he grew up.
When he looks at the global warming debate, what he sees is this: a whole, big bunch of people on one side, and only a few on the other (I doubt you'd disagree that the majority DO believe in global warming). We both know there have been enough stories - from both sides - about people being pressured to speak/not speak, to change their minds, have their jobs threatened, etc, if they don't toe the line. He's seen people personally attacked - again, on both sides - denounced and ridiculed for their beliefs. This makes him nervous - he's not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about this. He sees all too many parallels to how things works in the now non-existent worker's paradise of the Warsaw pack countries, and he doesn't like it. He sees that, coupled with Western governmental organizations jumping with the political winds as bullying. And since they just got rid of ONE dictatorship, he sees this new one - "central (now global) planning", as a di
From my quick reading of the wiki on the X-43A you linked to, I get the impression that it only it it's scramjet at about 100,000 feet.... but TFA states that this was the first to ignite and operate it's scramjet *within the atmosphere*. I'd guess that's the difference.
A correction - I should have re-read TFA before replying.
"Environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom"? Yeah, that's really level-headed, scientific and apolitical.
From TFA:
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism.
I don't know about you, but that tells me that he's not talking about environmentalism in general, but a particular form of it. I guess context really IS everything.
What he's saying is pretty simple, straightforward, and clear. I'm reading what he said, and not trying to read things that aren't there . As i said in an earlier post.... sometimes, people really DO say what they mean. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
If it's not, then why did you write in your previous post "eliminate *all* bias"?
Because the GOAL it to eliminate all bias. That doesn't mean it's possible.... but you still try to eliminate as much as possible. I didn't think it was a difficult concept.
Which is where you are totally misinterpreting what Klaus is saying.
I'm not misrepresenting what he's saying at all... I'm accepting it at face value. And I happen to agree with what he says.
He wants scientists to "reveal their biases," so people like him can ignore the science, start a witch hunt and use ad hominems, based on their political views.
No, he SAYS - and I agree with him - that if their biases are revealed, we will ALL be better able to take those biases into account, and eliminate them as much as possible, so that we CAN make rational, reasonable conclusions, free of the hype and hysteronics - from BOTH sides.
he is a politician, and that is what politicians do.
I find it interesting that you assume that because he is a politician, he can't have any honest opinions. I could argue that that shows YOUR bias.
You somehow believe that he is doing this out of an altruistic love of the sciences, and not a desire to demonize scientists?
I don't think he has any particular love OR hatred for the sciences. Nor do I think that he thinks scientists are any less human than the rest of us - which means they are still, like everybody else in the world, subject to looking through the lens of their own particular world view.
You're making the assumption that HIS assumption is that only scientists on one side have a bias, and he wants to discredit them.
BOTH sides are over the top. BOTH sides have politicized the issue. When I read that article, what I see is the frustration of somebody who IS in a position to do something, but is getting fed up with the bullshit emanating from BOTH sides. I see him wanting biases to be declared so that he can eliminate biases from the arguments, both for AND against, so that HE has a chance to make the rational decisions that it is his job to make.
It appears you are the one who didn't comprehend the article. This is exactly what he is proposing. The article is actually saying that global warming should be dismissed because of 'hysterics' and that environmentalism is a threat to freedom.
I think it would be more accurate to say that he thinks the DEBATE over global warming should be dismissed because of the hysteronics.
Let's have a show of hands.... how many people here have NOT had their eyes glaze over and felt their eyelids drooping when we come across Yet Another Global Warming(tm) article - either for OR against? And it is exactly that eye-glazing effect that is killing the debate. There is too much FUD, bullshit, and propaganda on both sides of the issue to make it possible for ANYBODY to find out what is really going on. And until that ends, *nothing* is going to be done to address what problems may really be there.
I'm not sure where you're getting this "eliminate bias" angle from. He is saying we need to be more biased about this issue, and he is invoking sterotypes and propaganda to do it. It's really out there in crazy-land. I'm not sure how you spin that into a call for a more balanced approach to science.
I disagree. His specific comments, I think, are more of a reflection on the debate as it is current
Oh, I believe it when I hear it - but this is obviously disingenuous trolling. I'm not sure what makes you so eager to take him at face value.
Maybe because I agree with him.
How is it possible to totally eliminate bias?
It's not. Does that mean you don't try to eliminate as much as possible? Isn't Ivory's "99 44/100% pure" better than 75%?
This makes even less sense - you are arguing that people who can't understand the science should just blindly let their political biases influence them, rather than the evidence?
Now I'm wondering if you bothered to read either TFA *or* anything I've written. One more time, folks. The point to knowing the biases is to enable to you to ELIMINATE the biases from the question when evaluating what they say, not to base your decision ON them.
Worse, what if their science has nothing to do with the personal political biases of the scientist?
Then there's nothing to eliminate, is there?
Many scientists present data and findings which are in opposition to their personal beliefs.
And there are also many who don't.... I would give to you as an example Dr David Suzuki. For those who have never heard of him, Suzuki was at one point acknowledged to be one of the foremost geneticists in the world. He hosted a TV sow called "The Nature of Things" on CBC Television here in Canada, which did a *wonderful* job of explaining in very simple terms, all things involving nature. As time went on, though, his shows became less and less "scientific", and more and more propogandistic. Today, there's nothing that comes out of his mouth that isn't greenpeace/save the world/global warming/nature good/man evil. Only a fool would accept what he says at face value saying "But he's a SCIENTIST!"
How would judging them by their political beliefs make any sense?
It wouldn't - and neither the TFA author nor I say that you should. The point is that if you know their political beliefs, you can use that knowledge to try to eliminate any bias from how they present their findings.
You are making the assumption that all scientists manipulate their findings to follow their political beliefs.
Not at all. Look, folks - we need a little reality check here.
First - nobody, and I mean *nobody* - is free from bias. Everybody has their own world view, and they look at the world and interpret it through that filter. It doesn't matter if your a scientist, priest, entertainer, mechanic, politician, or navel-gazing philosopher. We all have them.
The whole point to the scientific method is to separate personal belief from the pursuit of knowledge, and to only accept that which is objective and can be proven or disproven.
It is one thing to expect a scientist to be objective and dispassionate when conducting an experiment or publishing the results.
But if you think that somebody is capable of totally ignoring their personal beliefs when DISCUSSING the results of their experiments, you're wrong. Being a scientist doesn't make them infallible, any more than being a priest means that everything you say is holy writ.
Do scientists TRY to be impartial and even-handed when they talk about "things scientific"? The vast majority, yes. But even a conscious effort doesn't make them inhuman - they are still subject to the same behaviours as the rest of us. And there are always those who will *consciously* try to twist things.... either for their own political agenda, or for the nice, fat paycheck they're getting. And to believe otherwise is extremely naive.
All the author of TFA is that global warming is highly politicized (I doubt ANYBODY would disagree with that), and that he thinks it would be a good idea if the scientists involved divulged their personal biases on the subject when talking about it, so that their opinions could be filtered and weighed accordingly.
If you're not a scientist, are you planning to make your decision based solely on your understanding of his potential biases?
Please re-read what I said. If you understand biases, you are in a better position to DISCARD them when looking at what was presented, not make them the basis of a decision.
If people are competent to understand the data, they can review the data and determine what is speaking. The objectivity of empirical facts and the repeatably of systematic testing of empirical hypotheses is rather the point of science.
The problem isn't the people who are competent to understand the data. The problem is everybody ELSE... which also, btw, includes most scientists... and the people who have to decide what to DO with the data.... the politians of the world, including the author of the article. There really aren't a lot of climatologists in the world.
Asking that scientists disclose their biases and a litany of how they affected their results isn't going to acheive that, for several reasons. First, people aren't going to claim they are biased, either because they don't believe they are biased, or if they are biased and working deliberately from that bias, because they won't want to reveal it. Second, any publication of scientific results is a claim that the scientific method was applied, i.e., that agenda did not influence the results. So that's exactly what anyone currently publishing would claim if they followed the prescription offered.
You miss one very important point. There is a big difference between a scientist's ability to abide by the scientific method, take the proper measurements & statistic, write & publish a paper..... and his ability to not let his personal views interfere when he's trying to explain the results to a non-technical audience, when he has to almost by definition simplify some issues and ignore others if he wants his audience to understand.
The issue of the validity of the results is a scientific, objective question. The issue of the *interpretation* of those results when presenting them to people outside the domain is not.
Of course, the politician making the recommendation knows this isn't going anywhere, he is just trying to sell the idea that the scientific consensus is both not real and entirely the product of bias by acting as if that is an established conclusion from the outset and railing for a correction.
He's not trying to "sell" anything. A perfect example is the latest UN report. There was so much politicking about exactly what to put in the summary of the report that it's pretty well impossible for any sane individual to NOT wonder about it's accuracy and impartiality. And again, this isn't an argument about the data itself; it's an argument about the PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION of the data.
I've never seen an Oil company exec present data about global warming. I've seen oil company execs make bald, conclusory statements without presenting the supporting data. There is an important difference between the two things.
Which makes it a perfect example, and doesn't refute my point... HIS bias is out in the open. Nobody without a scientific background is going to confuse his statements with scientific fact or opinion.
Sure, if someone is presenting their views. Data != views.
Which brings us back to the point he was trying to make. If you're not a scientist, how do you know the difference between one and the other?
Yes, arguing that someone's arguments should be evaluated based on personal affiliation is ad hominem argument, except where the argument is supported only by personal authority of the source and the challenge is to bias or credibility of that source. Where the argument is presented based on verifiable evidence, challenges of bias of the source remain ad hominem.
Calling somebody an idiot because they believe in X when they're arguing about Y is ad hominem.
Knowing that they believe in X when they're talking about Y, on the other hand, can quite often enable you to SEPARATE data from opinion, t
"You need to tell me if you have any political thoughts that I can turn into an ad hominem argument rather than discuss your data or your methods because I'm not a physicist and I can't follow the math."
No - he's saying that if you have an AGENDA, be open and up front about it so that people can determine for themselves if it's the data or the political beliefs speaking.
Most people - including the vast majority on slashdot, who tend to be much better educated and intelligent than "the great unwashed" (myself included), don't have the specific knowledge or background to be able to properly weigh the data presented in the debate.
Knowing people's biases will make it easier for them - US - to properly weigh what they've said.
When an Oil company exec says something about global warming, you're going to take that into account when you look at any data he presents. Likewise, when the president of "People for the Full Eradication of Technology and Man" gives HIS views on the subject, you should also take THAT into account when looking at data he presents.
It's got exactly ZERO to do with ad hominem arguments, and everything to do with wanting full disclosure so that biases can be weeded out - on BOTH sides.
Sounds perfectly sensible to me.
Bottom line: Global warming is *intensely* political. And before we can make any rational decisions about what to do about it, we need to separate the politics from the science. Disclosing biases - on BOTH sides - will at least give us a CHANCE to do so.
"Trolltalk" is as fitting a name as I've ever come across.
Read the ENTIRE article. "I want to start a business" + "I just want to do my job." Well, which is it? Start a business, or do his job? In this case, its neither. Its just useless blather, and people see it, and call "bullshit."
And I call your "bullshit" supercilious rantings of an arrogant, ignorant know-it-all.
If he's starting a business, that IS his job. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Anyone wanting to use dlopen just has to look at the links I provided in another post (either here or in another thread - too busy to look). I also linked to example code. Its trivial to use. If you can't figure out how to use dlopen() after reading the examples, I'd hate to see you use something a bit more complicated like, say, printf. (And if you're intimidated by simple functions like dlopen() and printf(), you should give your idea of writing and selling proprietary software a quick reality check).
Well, let's see..... I haven't looked to see where you've provided those links either. But think about it for a minite. If you provited those links somewhere in this thread, the he asked the question BEFORE you provided the links - so you can't exactly condem him for not being able to read your mind over the tubes and reading your provided references before you posted them, can you?
And if you provided them in another thread... how the hell is he supposed to know what you posted, where? I sure as hell didn't - and I'm not exactly a noob.
Really... the poster asked for opinions. My opinion is simple - the poster's proposal is less than half-baked at this jucture. Maybe its impolitic to say so, but that's reality.
Really.... maybe his proposal IS half-baked at this juncture, as you suggest. And maybe - just maybe - THAT"S WHY HE'S ASKING THE QUESTION, YOU SILLY GIT.
My god, man - first you dump on him for not being born with the collected memories of all programmers since the 1950's, and then you dump on him because he's actually looking for information that might help him flesh out his ideas further.
This person is not cut out to be a programmer. Let them take up marketing, politics, sales, or some other "fuzzy" problem domain.
I've been a programmer for over 25 years.... but I also remember writing a 1,200 line Fortran programme years and years ago. Then, as I was leafing through the Fortran IV reference manual, I came across a "subroutine" statement, and I couldn't figure out what possible use it could have. After talking to some of the engineers at work (I was a batch terminal operator at a Control Data public site at the time), the lightbulb went on, and I reduced the code probably by a factor of 4 simply by eliminating many, many, many GOTO's and redundant, repeated code. It's called the LEARNING.
And about 20 years ago, I went out on my own and started my own business. I had no clue about bookkeeping, taxes, business practices, or even how to go about getting a business telephone.
I ASKED people. I LEARNED. And the only reason I learned was because the people I asked gave me answers, not attitude, derision, or make themselves feel better about themselves by beating up on the newbie.
So.... I'm calling you on YOUR bullshit. You had to learn somehow. You wern't born with the knowledge you have today. Somewhere, at some point, you were asking questions about things and people gave you answers. If you're not willing to to the same for others, then STFU, and stay the hell away from Ask Slashdot - we'll all be better off for it.
Already its a -4 by most reasonable standards. I browse at -1, but this... its utter crap. Anyone who thinks that calling dlopen() is "too hard" better go back to whatever Microsoft is selling that replaced VB and play with their pretty form designers...
For all you know he's a rocket scientist or brain surgeon who's bored and wants to get into something interesting, like programming
So tell me.... were you born knowing how to use dlopen() et all? Or was there some time when YOU were a beginning programmer, and had no idea wtf you were doing half the time?
What's that quote..... "There are no stupid questions - only stupid answers" Guess there's some life in that old saw after all
Stop being arrogant. Who bloody cares WHY he doesn't know? At least he's trying to learn, and has brains enough to try to learn by asking questions in a forum where somebody might know the answer, instead of staring at the screen, not knowing what to do next.
It seems to me that the biggest barrier to him doing anything productive is the arrogance of those that have come before him.
High school students aren't allowed to ask questions? (Not that I'm making that assumption).
Asking a question indicates a lack of knowledge, and has no bearing on age or maturity.
was from the beginning to the end an open attack to Sun and its Open Source strategy.
I'd like to know what email he was reading... what I saw was at best a critique of Sun's past behavior (accurate, as far as it went - it *was* just an email, not a dissertation), and the observation that you can't really fault them because they were acting in what they perceived to be their own best interest - which he also said was the way things SHOULD be done.
Why do I have visions of some 8 year old little manipulative prick running into the kitchen yelling "Mommy! Mommy! Guess that Jimmy just did!"
Slashdot Mirror
As a matter of fact, yes, they have. Check out some of the UN surveys. If I remember correctly, they even break some of the results down by region. And I could be wrong, but I believe the economist did some global surveys on some aspects of global warming a few years ago as well. This is just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's more, buried around the 'net somewhere. Google is your friend. You don't agree with him, therefore he's an idiot. Because he's an idiot, you can't reason with him, so you won't try. Good one.
At one point in history, people believed the world was flat. They wern't idiots.
Back when steam-powered rail was being developed, some of the leading scientists of the day swore that rail travel over 35 mph was impossible, becuase at that speed all the air in the front of the car would rush to the back and the people in front would suffocate. They wern't idiots.
There are all sorts of examples throughout history where people have been wrong without being idiots. And this precisely the sort of characterization he's referring to when he talks about the attempt to enforce a group-think and political correctness - "scientific consensus", as he knows and defines it (the definition of which you were given, apparently without understanding) - about global warming. All you're doing here is proving him correct. (Skipping parts, because this is becoming tiresome) For the last time
I think this pretty well sums up this entire thread. You've made up your mind, you've read into the article what you want to read, and there's absolutely no possibility in your mind that you are anything other than 100% correct. And anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot, and therefore not worth talking to.
Well, call me an idiot. For myself, I'm going to conclude that his ideas about group-think and political correctness surrounding the debate are correct, and that you are proof that he's right.
I may be an idiot, but fortunately I'm smart enough to realize when I'm flogging a dead horse.
frankly, yes .... unless you're looking at polls that are vastly different than the polls that I've seen on the subject.
So explain to them - without the hysteronics - why one doesn't preclude the other.
This is where context & understanding is everything. "Scientific consensus" does NOT mean to you, what it means to him - and what he's talking about is not what you're commenting on. Again, a little background. The phrase, "Scientific consensus" has a different meaning in the Soviet world he grew up in. The Soviets believed that everything should be suborned to the needs of the state, and should be used to further the revolution - history, politics .. AND SCIENCE. When people in the state had achieved "scientific consensus" on a subject, it means that they had come to decisions on how best to interpret data TO BEST FURTHER THE REVOLUTION.
.... Take a look at the debates that went on for years in the Ukraine, on whether or not seeds for certain plants should be planted shallow or deep. Khrushchev - always more of a pragmatist than a demagogue - looked to western agricultural practices, and saw that these crops were planed deeply in the west, with wonderful yields as a result. But the Academy of Sciences had looked at other evidence, involving planting practices in Siberia, where conditions were greatly different from those in the Ukraine. When confronted by the evidence of western success, and even in the face of crop failures in the Ukraine in the first few years, the western experience was discarded. Shallow planing continued, because it was a SOVIET solution, developed democratically in accordance with Soviet teachings - a "scientific consensus" had been reached. To admit failure and adopt the western practices would have been to admit failure of the Soviet system, which would have been a setback for the revolution .... and this could not be allowed to happen. So for the next 10/15 years, crops in the Ukraine were planted closer to the surface than they should have been, and instead of being a breadbasket, the Ukraine became a basketcase.
.... would you like to hazard a guess as to what happened to those that ignored the "scientific consensus" and planted their crops deeply?
If you want an example
Oh, yeah
Not at all. First, a correction I've already made for you - his article concerns aggressive environmentalism, not environmentalism in general. Second - given the tone & tenor of the debate, it's not difficult at all to see massive parallels between the "pro" side and Soviet attempts at imposing group-think. He even makes that point directly himself:
The scientists should be explaining that information to the scientists.
In most western governments, there is some form of lobbiest registry where people who wish to talk to the government with the hopes of influencing public policy are required to register, so that everybody knows the agenda they're trying to push. So that their biases are out in the open, and their statements can be weighed accordingly.
Why should scientists be any different, when they try to influence public policy?
"I'm a scientist" works in the lab when you're conducting the experiment. But it doesn't even work when you try to publish - that's why peer review exists, to try to eliminate that bullcrap. And it SURE as hell doesn't exist when they take on the role of lobbyist.
I don't see that TFA author is trying to tell people what to think, and I'd love to know where you see if, if you do.
It's going to be really interesting to see just how many hotel chains declare bankruptcy with a year after this passes.
.... but something like this will kill it overnight.
I don't know the numbers for the contribution of foreign tourism to the US economy
now, THAT was an explanation. Right now I regret that I'd already posted to this discussion - I can't use my mod points on you. Thanks.
You're also wrong in that you have to be able to understand the data in order to understand the science. I now how an internal combustion works
You don't need to be a domain expert on something in order to have a reasonably accurate working understanding of the field, or knowledge of basic principals involved. The job of the scientists in this case is to ensure that the people who make the decisions HAVE that required understanding.
gotcha .... I stand corrected. I gotta learn to NOT post at 4am ..... it's causing a lot of pissyness in the global warming article just down the hall :-)
He wasn't politicizing science. He was politicizing the people who TALK about the science ... specifically, their tactics and HOW they talk about it.
Now, there's an ad hominem for you if I ever saw one.
And I think he IS trying to depoliticise the science.
The vast majority of it, yes - and for those bits I *don't* agree with, I can certainly understand why he says what he does ... and it has nothing to do with FUD, on his part or mine.
..... or maybe it will help you interpret what I have been saying, and what HE has been saying, a little better. Knowing how to read is one thing .... understanding what you read, and what is being said, is another.
... but it does give me a feel for where he's coming from, and what he's trying to say.
.... if you're lucky and don't wind up in a re-education camp, or just hauled out and shot. This was his reality. This is how he grew up.
Let me try to explain it to you this way, and give you some context of where he's coming from. And I'll even give you some background on me, so you know MY bias. You can use it to dismiss what I say out of hand, as you seem to think he wants to
I spent the cold war in an intelligence trade in the Navy - that's where I learned to speak Russian, and where the name Gorshkov comes from. After the navy, I took an honours degree in Soviet & East European Studies. My thesis was on how the Soviet Union used control of sources to information and information itself to control the population. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with global warming, I grant you that
For me, the key point in the entire article is this:
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. (emphasis mine, to separate what he's talking about from environmentalism in general).
The man has lived his entire life under the yoke of communism. Enforced group think. If you don't believe what you're told, you get to move to Siberia
When he looks at the global warming debate, what he sees is this: a whole, big bunch of people on one side, and only a few on the other (I doubt you'd disagree that the majority DO believe in global warming). We both know there have been enough stories - from both sides - about people being pressured to speak/not speak, to change their minds, have their jobs threatened, etc, if they don't toe the line. He's seen people personally attacked - again, on both sides - denounced and ridiculed for their beliefs. This makes him nervous - he's not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about this. He sees all too many parallels to how things works in the now non-existent worker's paradise of the Warsaw pack countries, and he doesn't like it. He sees that, coupled with Western governmental organizations jumping with the political winds as bullying. And since they just got rid of ONE dictatorship, he sees this new one - "central (now global) planning", as a di
From my quick reading of the wiki on the X-43A you linked to, I get the impression that it only it it's scramjet at about 100,000 feet .... but TFA states that this was the first to ignite and operate it's scramjet *within the atmosphere*. I'd guess that's the difference.
I don't know about you, but that tells me that he's not talking about environmentalism in general, but a particular form of it. I guess context really IS everything.
What he's saying is pretty simple, straightforward, and clear. I'm reading what he said, and not trying to read things that aren't there . As i said in an earlier post .... sometimes, people really DO say what they mean. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
Because the GOAL it to eliminate all bias. That doesn't mean it's possible .... but you still try to eliminate as much as possible. I didn't think it was a difficult concept.
I'm not misrepresenting what he's saying at all ... I'm accepting it at face value. And I happen to agree with what he says.
No, he SAYS - and I agree with him - that if their biases are revealed, we will ALL be better able to take those biases into account, and eliminate them as much as possible, so that we CAN make rational, reasonable conclusions, free of the hype and hysteronics - from BOTH sides.
I find it interesting that you assume that because he is a politician, he can't have any honest opinions. I could argue that that shows YOUR bias.
I don't think he has any particular love OR hatred for the sciences. Nor do I think that he thinks scientists are any less human than the rest of us - which means they are still, like everybody else in the world, subject to looking through the lens of their own particular world view.
You're making the assumption that HIS assumption is that only scientists on one side have a bias, and he wants to discredit them.
BOTH sides are over the top. BOTH sides have politicized the issue. When I read that article, what I see is the frustration of somebody who IS in a position to do something, but is getting fed up with the bullshit emanating from BOTH sides. I see him wanting biases to be declared so that he can eliminate biases from the arguments, both for AND against, so that HE has a chance to make the rational decisions that it is his job to make.
I think it would be more accurate to say that he thinks the DEBATE over global warming should be dismissed because of the hysteronics.
.... how many people here have NOT had their eyes glaze over and felt their eyelids drooping when we come across Yet Another Global Warming(tm) article - either for OR against? And it is exactly that eye-glazing effect that is killing the debate. There is too much FUD, bullshit, and propaganda on both sides of the issue to make it possible for ANYBODY to find out what is really going on. And until that ends, *nothing* is going to be done to address what problems may really be there.
Let's have a show of hands
I disagree. His specific comments, I think, are more of a reflection on the debate as it is current
The whole point to the scientific method is to separate personal belief from the pursuit of knowledge, and to only accept that which is objective and can be proven or disproven.
It is one thing to expect a scientist to be objective and dispassionate when conducting an experiment or publishing the results.
But if you think that somebody is capable of totally ignoring their personal beliefs when DISCUSSING the results of their experiments, you're wrong. Being a scientist doesn't make them infallible, any more than being a priest means that everything you say is holy writ.
Do scientists TRY to be impartial and even-handed when they talk about "things scientific"? The vast majority, yes. But even a conscious effort doesn't make them inhuman - they are still subject to the same behaviours as the rest of us. And there are always those who will *consciously* try to twist things
All the author of TFA is that global warming is highly politicized (I doubt ANYBODY would disagree with that), and that he thinks it would be a good idea if the scientists involved divulged their personal biases on the subject when talking about it, so that their opinions could be filtered and weighed accordingly.
I agree with him totally.
My god
As I said
To a fellow scientist, maybe
The problem isn't the people who are competent to understand the data. The problem is everybody ELSE ... which also, btw, includes most scientists ... and the people who have to decide what to DO with the data .... the politians of the world, including the author of the article. There really aren't a lot of climatologists in the world.
You miss one very important point. There is a big difference between a scientist's ability to abide by the scientific method, take the proper measurements & statistic, write & publish a paper ..... and his ability to not let his personal views interfere when he's trying to explain the results to a non-technical audience, when he has to almost by definition simplify some issues and ignore others if he wants his audience to understand.
The issue of the validity of the results is a scientific, objective question. The issue of the *interpretation* of those results when presenting them to people outside the domain is not.
He's not trying to "sell" anything. A perfect example is the latest UN report. There was so much politicking about exactly what to put in the summary of the report that it's pretty well impossible for any sane individual to NOT wonder about it's accuracy and impartiality. And again, this isn't an argument about the data itself; it's an argument about the PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION of the data.
Which makes it a perfect example, and doesn't refute my point ... HIS bias is out in the open. Nobody without a scientific background is going to confuse his statements with scientific fact or opinion.
Which brings us back to the point he was trying to make. If you're not a scientist, how do you know the difference between one and the other?
Calling somebody an idiot because they believe in X when they're arguing about Y is ad hominem.
Knowing that they believe in X when they're talking about Y, on the other hand, can quite often enable you to SEPARATE data from opinion, t
Most people - including the vast majority on slashdot, who tend to be much better educated and intelligent than "the great unwashed" (myself included), don't have the specific knowledge or background to be able to properly weigh the data presented in the debate.
Knowing people's biases will make it easier for them - US - to properly weigh what they've said.
When an Oil company exec says something about global warming, you're going to take that into account when you look at any data he presents. Likewise, when the president of "People for the Full Eradication of Technology and Man" gives HIS views on the subject, you should also take THAT into account when looking at data he presents.
It's got exactly ZERO to do with ad hominem arguments, and everything to do with wanting full disclosure so that biases can be weeded out - on BOTH sides.
Sounds perfectly sensible to me.
Bottom line: Global warming is *intensely* political. And before we can make any rational decisions about what to do about it, we need to separate the politics from the science. Disclosing biases - on BOTH sides - will at least give us a CHANCE to do so.
May God have mercy on your soul if you ever attempt to call a woman a physical object to her face.
You are going to be one very, very bitter old man ...... I guess the only thing you need to do now is wait to get old.
And I call your "bullshit" supercilious rantings of an arrogant, ignorant know-it-all. If he's starting a business, that IS his job. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Well, let's see
And if you provided them in another thread
So tell me
What's that quote
Stop being arrogant. Who bloody cares WHY he doesn't know? At least he's trying to learn, and has brains enough to try to learn by asking questions in a forum where somebody might know the answer, instead of staring at the screen, not knowing what to do next.
It seems to me that the biggest barrier to him doing anything productive is the arrogance of those that have come before him.
High school students aren't allowed to ask questions? (Not that I'm making that assumption). Asking a question indicates a lack of knowledge, and has no bearing on age or maturity.
I'd like to know what email he was reading
Why do I have visions of some 8 year old little manipulative prick running into the kitchen yelling "Mommy! Mommy! Guess that Jimmy just did!"
Tannenbaum isn't a zealot - he's an academic, as in theoretical.
RMS is most definitely a zealot - as in rabid. He'd have done Simon proud.
The PREACHER is a bigot - as I said, it's not a defining characteristic of the religion