I agree webOS is bland. It reminds me of WebTV. However, I don't think the name of the OS was their major problem. TouchPad was an OK name for the device it ran on. It just seems that they had a tough time competing with iPad and Android.
They probably should have had more persistence, though, after spending so much money on it. It's like if Sony had just abandoned the PS3 after its rocky start.
Also, HP isn't just getting out of WebOS, it's getting out of selling PCs. It is the #1 seller of Windows based PCs. So why the hell would Microsoft bribe them to stop doing that?
Leading to the obvious question of why HP is getting out of PCs, and why the board would agree to it, and if there is going to be a shareholder revolt.
It's true the lack of worker protections, environmental regulations, and glut of labor supply makes everything cheaper in China. However, all that was true under communism. It wasn't until they enacted free-market reforms that their economy exploded.
As for cogs, well come on, most corporations feel the same way about their employees. They pay them as little as what the market, laws, or unions allow. Just look at how the games industry chews through employees.
As for your 19th century Englishman example, I tend to think that the early industrial abuses of the West were probably comparable, if not worse. My impression is that China is slowly moving away from the worst abuses and starting to take the environment seriously.
Well I did Google the subject, and there were lots of pages describing the topic at a high level, including the mathematics and pointers to deeper treatments. Considering that you were on a ten-year plan, I don't think you needed the specific help you as claimed in your analogy.
Reading up on general sources and diving deeper as you saw fit doesn't require a post to Slashdot.
The report explicitly says that CRU was not in a position to withhold data.
Keep on cherry picking. The report said they weren't in a position to withhold temperature data. "station identifiers" is data, and the report explicitly said it should have been released. You've got blinders on.
The resport explicity says that Phil Jones graph was misleading in hindsight (given the iconic significance)
It didn't "misleading in hindsight", that's your made up phrase. Neither did it say it was "correct" as you originally claimed. It said it "we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain - ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text". That a similar graph gained iconic status or not doesn't excuse the original, though a similarly misleading graph gaining iconic status certainly makes it worse.
And if you look at Phil Jones' email, the reason was to "hide the decline". It was pure politics to hide uncertainty.
By presenting three separately sourced graphs, and then modifying them by chopping off data and appending in a single source, it shows independent agreement where there was none. If you can't understand this basic fact then you are hopeless.
At this point I'm repeating myself a lot. No more replies from me.
Welcome to slashdot where innocent questions are met with derision and insults.
It was also a lazy question, one that a simple Google search for "general relativity" could have answered. I agree with the parent poster that if he can't be bothered to dig a little on his own, he's never going to take the time to study it anyways.
You, because every allegation I made was backed up by the report. There are instances where they did not withhold data, but the report explicitly cites an instance where they did, and cited an overall pattern.
The graph supplied for the WMO by Phil Jones was misleading, as stated by the report. That other graphs were OK does not excuse the WMO graph.
The final allegation I made was about telling his colleagues to erase email.
Three specific allegations, all three backed up by the report. Then you come up with bullshit statements like "The CCE report specifically says that no data was improperly withheld." [emphasis mine]
Ah yes, cos China's doing such a terrible job economically.
China grew economically by abandoning communism and bringing in capitalism. They're still a one-party government that does as it pleases, but communism it ain't.
That's an absurd statement, as free speech has never been more prevalent for the common person because of the Internet. Privacy isn't strictly a freedom, as freedom of speech dictates that people are allowed to talk about other people. You may want to put limits on information collecting, but that's not freedom.
The CCE report specifically says that no data was improperly withheld.
"On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU's responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive."
and:
"But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."
The CCE report says that the graph was correct
"On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain - ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."
It didn't say the graph was "correct". And if you can't spot the problem with identifying three independent sources and then blending in data from a single source (that is, manipulating the original data) to show agreement, then you have no business talking about scientific integrity.
What is this talk of strawmen? That means you pick you fail to respond to your opponents strongest argument. I have accused you of cherry picking a few sentences out of the IPCC report.
Yes, you cherry picked and failed to respond to my strongest arguments. I made specific allegations. While the report exonerated Phil Jones and the CRU of some allegations from the list submitted to them, every allegation I made was backed up by the report, which you then chose to ignore.
In particular, you have cherry picked the single conclusion that you want to see -- that somehow the CCE calls the credibility of climate science into question.
Please stop with the strawmen. I referred to the CCE review to back up the specific charges against Phil Jones: that the graph was misleading, that he incorrectly withheld data (not for legal purposes, but to obstruct), and that he asked his colleagues to delete email.
Yes, we're in agreement that it's not a good choice of figure, and can potentially be misunderstood.
That's not what I said at all. I explicitly said in my last post that "This wasn't a minor lapse of judgment, it was intentional deceit for political reasons."
It's not a matter of "choice of figure", it's a matter of deceptive manipulation and labeling. It's not a matter of "can potentially be misunderstood", it's a matter of showing strong agreement of independent sources when there is none.
Of course, the overall impression of the figure--that global average temperatures are higher than they have been for hundreds of years--is supported by many other lines of evidence.
The level of uncertainty is important. Showing three independent graphs rise in agreement gives the wrong impression about certainty due to a false consistency.
Yes, I suppose that might be important to lawyers and policy wonks. I'm not one of those; I'm a scientist.
The CCE review team was composed of scientists. There's no reason why the science shouldn't be as transparent as possible.
All I see is some people who don't like the conclusions of the science trying to use one bad choice of figure representation to discredit the entire body of science--which is far, far more misleading than that one bad figure.
Using euphemisms like "bad choice of figure representation" when data is being manipulated and presented to the public is a serious scientific problem and degrades trust. I agree that there are many trying to tear down the whole science using whatever levers they can find, but responding by becoming political and loosening scientific standards is not the answer.
No, I can't tell because the lines are overlapping, and I can't tell whether one stops or not.
You're missing the point. The lines are only overlapping because he blended in data from a single source. Second, if you look carefully, you can see the different colors at the end. And finally, the obvious interpretation from somebody looking at the graph is to assume they all continue. Nobody is going to think "maybe the graphs stop" unless they were familiar with the original data.
although I've done it myself, it's probably not really a good thing to do to use a data figure in this kind of casual manner as a cover illustration.
I'm sorry, are you saying you took data from independent sources, labeled them as such, and then mixed and appended data from another source so that they convey a message by strength of agreement that isn't there?
I know you've already tossed the word "crank" out there, but can't you see why the respected physicist Richard Muller was so taken aback in the YouTube clip that was linked to in this thread? This wasn't a minor lapse of judgment, it was intentional deceit for political reasons.
I'm not saying all the science of global warming should be tossed out. I'm just saying this kind of thing never should have happened, and it shouldn't be whitewashed over.
The appropriate action would be for the university to formally reject the demands in the legally correct manner.
The CCE review disagrees with you, both from a legal perspective and policy perspective. You act as if transparency is a bad thing.
The best way to validate science is to carry out your own independent analysis of the same (or even better, independent) data.
There's also value in reviewing the original experiments for flaws, so that they are not repeated and that each analysis is strengthened. That is the point of having peer-reviewing in the first place.
So you accept that the figure I showed, as well as of the figures published in the actual scientific literature are fine--you are complaining about a single figure not even in the text of a report--a cover illo (which frankly, is drawn in such a way that I can't tell which line ends where).
You can't tell where the lines end because the graphs were blended together with data from a single source. They were all extended out to the end. If the original graphs weren't manipulated you wouldn't have seen all three shooting upwards.
I'll confess that I've personally occasionally used scientific images as cover illustrations, without bothering to provide a figure legend or indeed any explanation of what was depicted, just as a pretty picture.
This wasn't just a "pretty picture". The graph had a legend of three different sources, and then he manipulated them to be in agreement where there was none. That you are a scientist and whitewashing this issue disgusts me. That it wasn't published in a peer-review science journal, but instead intended for a wider audience, doesn't excuse the deceit.
So yes, Jones shouldn't have gotten pissed off and decided to stonewall--he should have called up his university's lawyers and gotten them to send out the appropriately worded legal rejections appropriate for abusive FoI demands.
The CCE review doesn't agree with you: "But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."
What he should have done is just put up and documented all his data on a webpage for that anybody that cared to look at it. It's not like you need to save space and omit details as when publishing a paper.
As a scientist, I am more concerned with the validation of Jones's science.
One way to validate that science is to document your steps and have others check them. Mistakes should be corrected. You sure sound like a scientist who doesn't care too much about integrity or openness.
You have/one/ respected physicist, harping on about one minor point in a vast body of literature.
In denial much? How many times do I need to point to the CCE review, which called the graph misleading? The review also dings them for not being open with their data.
Phil Jones didn't lie, and it is debatable that he played fast and loose with the truth.
He did lie. He labeled three independent graphs from three sources, and then modified them by blending in thermometer temperatures from a single series, so that all three graphs were in agreement. That you keep on trying to whitewash such deceit shows that you value politics over scientific integrity.
Cling to the "truth" that climate scientists are a shifty bunch. Afterall, Phil Jones is, right?
Nice strawman. Where did I say this? Let me repeat what I said to start this:
"You have Phil Jones to blame. The graph he produced when talking about the "trick" was, in fact, deceitful, even if Mann's original graph wasn't. Phil Jones was also the one recorded in email saying that he'd rather delete data than release it, and also the one to ask other researchers to erase email.
I don't think there's a vast conspiracy among climate scientists, but the science was definitely politicized and oversold."
And quoting from the CCE review:
"But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."
99% of scientists who looked at this, and 100% of science organisations are wrong.
You're ignoring the CCE review: "On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain â" ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."
This is the review funded by the University of East Anglia themselves.
Also, making up statistics about "99% of scientists who looked at this, and 100% of science organisations" is a bunch of bullshit. And really, Richard Muller is a respected physicist. You wouldn't know scientific integrity if it hit you in the head.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an easy answer to that, there's no profit in making PCs.
I don't consider over $2 billion a year "no profit", even if the margins aren't as large as Apple's or software. This is just greed and gambling.
It's Katrina, not "Kathrina".
refers to PCs as "boxes."
Just be glad it's not "boxen".
I agree webOS is bland. It reminds me of WebTV. However, I don't think the name of the OS was their major problem. TouchPad was an OK name for the device it ran on. It just seems that they had a tough time competing with iPad and Android.
They probably should have had more persistence, though, after spending so much money on it. It's like if Sony had just abandoned the PS3 after its rocky start.
Also, HP isn't just getting out of WebOS, it's getting out of selling PCs. It is the #1 seller of Windows based PCs. So why the hell would Microsoft bribe them to stop doing that?
Leading to the obvious question of why HP is getting out of PCs, and why the board would agree to it, and if there is going to be a shareholder revolt.
If HP called it OSome (awesome), or something to that level of coolness
That's OWful.
Ask yourself the same question, and maybe you'll find the answer.
It's true the lack of worker protections, environmental regulations, and glut of labor supply makes everything cheaper in China. However, all that was true under communism. It wasn't until they enacted free-market reforms that their economy exploded.
As for cogs, well come on, most corporations feel the same way about their employees. They pay them as little as what the market, laws, or unions allow. Just look at how the games industry chews through employees.
As for your 19th century Englishman example, I tend to think that the early industrial abuses of the West were probably comparable, if not worse. My impression is that China is slowly moving away from the worst abuses and starting to take the environment seriously.
Google summarizes the best approaches by ranking the search results. It's easy from there to browse the top results and pick what suits you.
Well I did Google the subject, and there were lots of pages describing the topic at a high level, including the mathematics and pointers to deeper treatments. Considering that you were on a ten-year plan, I don't think you needed the specific help you as claimed in your analogy.
Reading up on general sources and diving deeper as you saw fit doesn't require a post to Slashdot.
The report explicitly says that CRU was not in a position to withhold data.
Keep on cherry picking. The report said they weren't in a position to withhold temperature data. "station identifiers" is data, and the report explicitly said it should have been released. You've got blinders on.
The resport explicity says that Phil Jones graph was misleading in hindsight (given the iconic significance)
It didn't "misleading in hindsight", that's your made up phrase. Neither did it say it was "correct" as you originally claimed. It said it "we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain - ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text". That a similar graph gained iconic status or not doesn't excuse the original, though a similarly misleading graph gaining iconic status certainly makes it worse.
And if you look at Phil Jones' email, the reason was to "hide the decline". It was pure politics to hide uncertainty.
By presenting three separately sourced graphs, and then modifying them by chopping off data and appending in a single source, it shows independent agreement where there was none. If you can't understand this basic fact then you are hopeless.
At this point I'm repeating myself a lot. No more replies from me.
Welcome to slashdot where innocent questions are met with derision and insults.
It was also a lazy question, one that a simple Google search for "general relativity" could have answered. I agree with the parent poster that if he can't be bothered to dig a little on his own, he's never going to take the time to study it anyways.
So... tell me what cherry picking is again?
You, because every allegation I made was backed up by the report. There are instances where they did not withhold data, but the report explicitly cites an instance where they did, and cited an overall pattern.
The graph supplied for the WMO by Phil Jones was misleading, as stated by the report. That other graphs were OK does not excuse the WMO graph.
The final allegation I made was about telling his colleagues to erase email.
Three specific allegations, all three backed up by the report. Then you come up with bullshit statements like "The CCE report specifically says that no data was improperly withheld." [emphasis mine]
Ah yes, cos China's doing such a terrible job economically.
China grew economically by abandoning communism and bringing in capitalism. They're still a one-party government that does as it pleases, but communism it ain't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
Privacy is the last freedom we have
That's an absurd statement, as free speech has never been more prevalent for the common person because of the Internet. Privacy isn't strictly a freedom, as freedom of speech dictates that people are allowed to talk about other people. You may want to put limits on information collecting, but that's not freedom.
The CCE report specifically says that no data was improperly withheld.
"On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU's responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive."
and:
"But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."
The CCE report says that the graph was correct
"On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain - ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."
It didn't say the graph was "correct". And if you can't spot the problem with identifying three independent sources and then blending in data from a single source (that is, manipulating the original data) to show agreement, then you have no business talking about scientific integrity.
What is this talk of strawmen? That means you pick you fail to respond to your opponents strongest argument. I have accused you of cherry picking a few sentences out of the IPCC report.
Yes, you cherry picked and failed to respond to my strongest arguments. I made specific allegations. While the report exonerated Phil Jones and the CRU of some allegations from the list submitted to them, every allegation I made was backed up by the report, which you then chose to ignore.
Would you prefer a movie review from Taco or one of his jaunts to a computer center?
In particular, you have cherry picked the single conclusion that you want to see -- that somehow the CCE calls the credibility of climate science into question.
Please stop with the strawmen. I referred to the CCE review to back up the specific charges against Phil Jones: that the graph was misleading, that he incorrectly withheld data (not for legal purposes, but to obstruct), and that he asked his colleagues to delete email.
Yes, we're in agreement that it's not a good choice of figure, and can potentially be misunderstood.
That's not what I said at all. I explicitly said in my last post that "This wasn't a minor lapse of judgment, it was intentional deceit for political reasons."
It's not a matter of "choice of figure", it's a matter of deceptive manipulation and labeling. It's not a matter of "can potentially be misunderstood", it's a matter of showing strong agreement of independent sources when there is none.
Of course, the overall impression of the figure--that global average temperatures are higher than they have been for hundreds of years--is supported by many other lines of evidence.
The level of uncertainty is important. Showing three independent graphs rise in agreement gives the wrong impression about certainty due to a false consistency.
Yes, I suppose that might be important to lawyers and policy wonks. I'm not one of those; I'm a scientist.
The CCE review team was composed of scientists. There's no reason why the science shouldn't be as transparent as possible.
All I see is some people who don't like the conclusions of the science trying to use one bad choice of figure representation to discredit the entire body of science--which is far, far more misleading than that one bad figure.
Using euphemisms like "bad choice of figure representation" when data is being manipulated and presented to the public is a serious scientific problem and degrades trust. I agree that there are many trying to tear down the whole science using whatever levers they can find, but responding by becoming political and loosening scientific standards is not the answer.
These are not handcuffs. The only people who think these are handcuffs are day traders and speculators.
Or activist spin-doctors like theodp. Yes, he does this with every submission.
No, I can't tell because the lines are overlapping, and I can't tell whether one stops or not.
You're missing the point. The lines are only overlapping because he blended in data from a single source. Second, if you look carefully, you can see the different colors at the end. And finally, the obvious interpretation from somebody looking at the graph is to assume they all continue. Nobody is going to think "maybe the graphs stop" unless they were familiar with the original data.
although I've done it myself, it's probably not really a good thing to do to use a data figure in this kind of casual manner as a cover illustration.
I'm sorry, are you saying you took data from independent sources, labeled them as such, and then mixed and appended data from another source so that they convey a message by strength of agreement that isn't there?
I know you've already tossed the word "crank" out there, but can't you see why the respected physicist Richard Muller was so taken aback in the YouTube clip that was linked to in this thread? This wasn't a minor lapse of judgment, it was intentional deceit for political reasons.
I'm not saying all the science of global warming should be tossed out. I'm just saying this kind of thing never should have happened, and it shouldn't be whitewashed over.
The appropriate action would be for the university to formally reject the demands in the legally correct manner.
The CCE review disagrees with you, both from a legal perspective and policy perspective. You act as if transparency is a bad thing.
The best way to validate science is to carry out your own independent analysis of the same (or even better, independent) data.
There's also value in reviewing the original experiments for flaws, so that they are not repeated and that each analysis is strengthened. That is the point of having peer-reviewing in the first place.
I still go to GameStop to buy and sell used games, though.
Good God, why? You'll get much better deals on eBay, either buying or selling.
So you accept that the figure I showed, as well as of the figures published in the actual scientific literature are fine--you are complaining about a single figure not even in the text of a report--a cover illo (which frankly, is drawn in such a way that I can't tell which line ends where).
You can't tell where the lines end because the graphs were blended together with data from a single source. They were all extended out to the end. If the original graphs weren't manipulated you wouldn't have seen all three shooting upwards.
I'll confess that I've personally occasionally used scientific images as cover illustrations, without bothering to provide a figure legend or indeed any explanation of what was depicted, just as a pretty picture.
This wasn't just a "pretty picture". The graph had a legend of three different sources, and then he manipulated them to be in agreement where there was none. That you are a scientist and whitewashing this issue disgusts me. That it wasn't published in a peer-review science journal, but instead intended for a wider audience, doesn't excuse the deceit.
So yes, Jones shouldn't have gotten pissed off and decided to stonewall--he should have called up his university's lawyers and gotten them to send out the appropriately worded legal rejections appropriate for abusive FoI demands.
The CCE review doesn't agree with you: "But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."
What he should have done is just put up and documented all his data on a webpage for that anybody that cared to look at it. It's not like you need to save space and omit details as when publishing a paper.
As a scientist, I am more concerned with the validation of Jones's science.
One way to validate that science is to document your steps and have others check them. Mistakes should be corrected. You sure sound like a scientist who doesn't care too much about integrity or openness.
You have /one/ respected physicist, harping on about one minor point in a vast body of literature.
In denial much? How many times do I need to point to the CCE review, which called the graph misleading? The review also dings them for not being open with their data.
Phil Jones didn't lie, and it is debatable that he played fast and loose with the truth.
He did lie. He labeled three independent graphs from three sources, and then modified them by blending in thermometer temperatures from a single series, so that all three graphs were in agreement. That you keep on trying to whitewash such deceit shows that you value politics over scientific integrity.
Cling to the "truth" that climate scientists are a shifty bunch. Afterall, Phil Jones is, right?
Nice strawman. Where did I say this? Let me repeat what I said to start this:
"You have Phil Jones to blame. The graph he produced when talking about the "trick" was, in fact, deceitful, even if Mann's original graph wasn't. Phil Jones was also the one recorded in email saying that he'd rather delete data than release it, and also the one to ask other researchers to erase email.
I don't think there's a vast conspiracy among climate scientists, but the science was definitely politicized and oversold."
And quoting from the CCE review:
"But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."
99% of scientists who looked at this, and 100% of science organisations are wrong.
You're ignoring the CCE review: "On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain â" ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."
This is the review funded by the University of East Anglia themselves.
Also, making up statistics about "99% of scientists who looked at this, and 100% of science organisations" is a bunch of bullshit. And really, Richard Muller is a respected physicist. You wouldn't know scientific integrity if it hit you in the head.