Both of your "third choice" examples are very much "career politicians". Especially as even when rejected by their political parties chose to try and stay in politics. When did Connecticut last elect someone who had never been a member of either these political parties?
Exactly so. Weicker became governor by losing a highly publicized election to Lieberman as the incumbent Republican, giving him name recognition. Weicker also lied by claiming he wouldn't institute a state income tax, which he promptly implemented once he got elected.
The second Snowdon actually threatened Putin's interests, he'd be off to a labor camp in Siberia. In the USA he at least gets a somewhat fair trial. In Russia, there wouldn't even be the pretense of one.
I think you're describing Stalin's Soviet Union and not modern day Russia. In Russia, you get a pretense of a fair trial -- it's just that 99% are convicted.
And just to follow up, if you read the article, Joel talks a fair bit about unnecessary obfuscation, starting with:
The first technique is to try to make the language of the patent as confusing and obfuscated as possible. That actually makes it harder for a patent examiner to identify prior art or evaluate if the invention is obvious.
and an example from the patent in question:
This patent was, typically, obfuscated, and it used terms like "pixel density" for something that every other programmer in the world would call "resolution," either accidentally (because Microsoft's lawyers were not programmers), or, more likely, because the obfuscation makes it that much harder to search.
It's pretty much obfuscation, perhaps necessitated by the peculiarities of patent applications, or perhaps deliberate just to make something sound technically novel when it isn't. I've read torturous software patents before that could have been described very simply otherwise.
Probably. They were researchers getting paid to research. Researchers thrive on getting published and having their ideas taken up. Just look at the countless computer algorithms that were invented and published by computer science researchers without patent protection.
Read that article carefully. It doesn't say "the models" have failedâ"it contrasts novel near-term models with "conventional climate projections", which are made on scales of decades rather than years and are of proven reliability.
The point I was trying to make, that the Earth is not a "math problem", and is instead "a complicated, dynamic system with many factors". If it was a "just" a math problem we wouldn't have all these complicated models with a wide range of predictions and after-the-fact explanations when they are wrong.
The article also shows a lot more uncertainty than you let on, even for longer-term trends, and I do recommend that people read it carefully.
In August 2007, Doug Smith took the biggest gamble of his career. After more than ten years of work with fellow modellers at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, Smith published a detailed prediction of how the climate would change over the better part of a decade1. His team forecasted that global warming would stall briefly and then pick up speed, sending the planet into record-breaking territory within a few years.
The Hadley prediction has not fared particularly well. Six years on, global temperatures have yet to shoot up as it projected.
The Earth is a complicated, dynamic system with many factors. It's not a "math problem". The models failed in their predictions for recent warming, which has remained flat. There's also the question of "forcings" vs "feedbacks".
I do, and I watched it out of morbid curiosity, and thought it would be entertaining just like I found violence entertaining in the movies. I came away feeling sickened and depressed, and had no desire to watch any more of it.
Did I derive any value from watching that smut? I'd say that it is quite negligible, but there was in fact some value gained.
There was for me. I was sickened and disgusted by the barbaric tourists bashing a monkey's head at a dinner table so that they could eat its brains. Death by the electric chair seemed cruel and barbaric. Daredevils risking their lives and horrendous injury for the entertainment of the mob lost all value for me.
More lies that have already been addressed. I said torture can work, not that it should be done.
Who's the evil one here? It was you who took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to get information is not torture, aligning yourself with the "enhanced interrogation" position of the Bush administration post 9/11.
Who has failed to respond to actual dictionary definitions and quotes from the UN convention against torture? Who has ludicrously claimed that Amnesty International would not define such as torture?
You.
Who has lied repeatedly with no response when called out on it? Who has levied charges of lying, but refuses to quote the actual lie?
You.
Who was either so stupid or attempting to obfuscate that when asked for a dictionary definition, claims they don't want to make up their own instead of just providing the dictionary definition?
You.
Who is so stupid or trying to obfuscate that when asked to "quote my lie", comes back with his own generality instead quoting my "lie"?
You.
You're a piece of shit, and I'm tired of talking to you.
Yup, what I thought. You repeat the pattern of never substantiating your claims, because you can't, because facts don't match your lies and imaginary worldview.
I return the question to you, and ask again for you to quote my lie. That means copy and paste my words verbatim from when I lied. Apparently you are too stupid or are ethically challenged to do so.
I'm not wrong I'm just leaving it to the experts of which neither of us are.
You're a liar. First, you took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to gain information is not torture all on your own. When I actually provide quoted references from the "experts" that contradict your disdainful position, you have no reply and instead resort to insults or other bluster. Anything to avoid addressing the references.
And if you think "honest debate" involves insults
If the shoe fits, wear it. If you take a position that torture isn't torture, I'll call you a hypocrite and evil. You haven't been shy with insults. In fact, that's your fallback position when you run out of arguments.
trivialising a very serious issue
That's what you did by saying twisting people's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information is not torture.
lying about what the other person has written
Again you have repeated the charge of lying, but when I asked you last time to name when I lied, you had no response. I say again, what lie? Quote please. You can't, which makes you the liar.
your love of torture is not your only major character flaw
Funny, you accuse me of lying about what you have written and then immediately lie about my stance. When did I ever express a "love of torture"? Quote please. You can't, which makes you a liar.
In contrast, you have excused torturous behavior as not being torture, despite all the quoted references which directly contradict your position.
Because I believe in honest debate. You are the one who thinks twisting of limbs and choking is not torture, despite being in line with the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation", which you clearly despise. Why?
Why make feeble attempts to back up your torture-isn't-torture position with imaginary dictionary definitions and ludicrous claims that Amnesty International would not define such as torture? Why ignore and be in contradiction with the near-universal international convention against torture?
All this because you couldn't admit you were wrong.
Does it matter which of those losers the anecdote about trivilising an issue is about - and yes - twisting an arm is trivial compared with the plentiful horror stories about torture.
It's just a pattern of carelessness on your part, but the details also matter. Why does being forced to stand for 4 hours, and Rumsfeld says he does 8-10, constitute trivializing torture? Or did your biased and failed memory just insert Rumsfeld's reply to an unnamed act of torture that went beyond standing?
What's apparent is that the loser trivializing the issue of torture is you. By saying "twisting an arm is trivial compared with the plentiful horror stories about torture", you are taking the same stand of the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" position. Yes, there is a wide spectrum of torture, but we don't excuse the stuff at the lower end because there is so much worse.
Please stop parading your character flaws in front of me and find something more useful and less gruesome to do.
You're the one who has exposed his character flaws for all to see, by trying to trivialize twisting of limbs and choking to gain information as not torture, by ludicrously claiming Amnesty International, of all groups, would not define such as torture, by ignoring the dictionary definition you claimed to be using, and by ignoring the UN convention against torture.
Slashdot Mirror
Both of your "third choice" examples are very much "career politicians". Especially as even when rejected by their political parties chose to try and stay in politics. When did Connecticut last elect someone who had never been a member of either these political parties?
Exactly so. Weicker became governor by losing a highly publicized election to Lieberman as the incumbent Republican, giving him name recognition. Weicker also lied by claiming he wouldn't institute a state income tax, which he promptly implemented once he got elected.
The second Snowdon actually threatened Putin's interests, he'd be off to a labor camp in Siberia. In the USA he at least gets a somewhat fair trial. In Russia, there wouldn't even be the pretense of one.
I think you're describing Stalin's Soviet Union and not modern day Russia. In Russia, you get a pretense of a fair trial -- it's just that 99% are convicted.
Principles are good starting points. We may not always live up to them, but they are useful to guide our decisions.
You could sell this story to Infowars, but you'll probably need to put an evil spin on it and work in references to Prison Planet.
However, I don't have $830 handy, or $600. Or $60. I have debt and kids that need to visit an orthodontist. So I'm out.
Have you considered crowdfunding? Maybe throw in a before and after smiling picture of the kids for pledgers.
And just to follow up, if you read the article, Joel talks a fair bit about unnecessary obfuscation, starting with:
The first technique is to try to make the language of the patent as confusing and obfuscated as possible. That actually makes it harder for a patent examiner to identify prior art or evaluate if the invention is obvious.
and an example from the patent in question:
This patent was, typically, obfuscated, and it used terms like "pixel density" for something that every other programmer in the world would call "resolution," either accidentally (because Microsoft's lawyers were not programmers), or, more likely, because the obfuscation makes it that much harder to search.
It's pretty much obfuscation, perhaps necessitated by the peculiarities of patent applications, or perhaps deliberate just to make something sound technically novel when it isn't. I've read torturous software patents before that could have been described very simply otherwise.
Probably. They were researchers getting paid to research. Researchers thrive on getting published and having their ideas taken up. Just look at the countless computer algorithms that were invented and published by computer science researchers without patent protection.
Read that article carefully. It doesn't say "the models" have failedâ"it contrasts novel near-term models with "conventional climate projections", which are made on scales of decades rather than years and are of proven reliability.
The point I was trying to make, that the Earth is not a "math problem", and is instead "a complicated, dynamic system with many factors". If it was a "just" a math problem we wouldn't have all these complicated models with a wide range of predictions and after-the-fact explanations when they are wrong.
The article also shows a lot more uncertainty than you let on, even for longer-term trends, and I do recommend that people read it carefully.
Unless your board and suite emits light, a striped pattern isn't going to do didly.
You just gave away your patent!
So you were mistaken by assuming what story I was talking about, and the flat recent warming was indeed not modeled.
Murdoch owns Nature now?
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344 :
In August 2007, Doug Smith took the biggest gamble of his career. After more than ten years of work with fellow modellers at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, Smith published a detailed prediction of how the climate would change over the better part of a decade1. His team forecasted that global warming would stall briefly and then pick up speed, sending the planet into record-breaking territory within a few years.
The Hadley prediction has not fared particularly well. Six years on, global temperatures have yet to shoot up as it projected.
It's hard to tell if he's making that joke or not, given all the Stephen Hawking hero worship and political correctness, jerkoff.
Now, it just becomes a math problem.
The Earth is a complicated, dynamic system with many factors. It's not a "math problem". The models failed in their predictions for recent warming, which has remained flat. There's also the question of "forcings" vs "feedbacks".
Does anyone remember the "Faces of Death" series?
I do, and I watched it out of morbid curiosity, and thought it would be entertaining just like I found violence entertaining in the movies. I came away feeling sickened and depressed, and had no desire to watch any more of it.
Did I derive any value from watching that smut? I'd say that it is quite negligible, but there was in fact some value gained.
There was for me. I was sickened and disgusted by the barbaric tourists bashing a monkey's head at a dinner table so that they could eat its brains. Death by the electric chair seemed cruel and barbaric. Daredevils risking their lives and horrendous injury for the entertainment of the mob lost all value for me.
More lies that have already been addressed. I said torture can work, not that it should be done.
Who's the evil one here? It was you who took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to get information is not torture, aligning yourself with the "enhanced interrogation" position of the Bush administration post 9/11.
Who has failed to respond to actual dictionary definitions and quotes from the UN convention against torture? Who has ludicrously claimed that Amnesty International would not define such as torture?
You.
Who has lied repeatedly with no response when called out on it? Who has levied charges of lying, but refuses to quote the actual lie?
You.
Who was either so stupid or attempting to obfuscate that when asked for a dictionary definition, claims they don't want to make up their own instead of just providing the dictionary definition?
You.
Who is so stupid or trying to obfuscate that when asked to "quote my lie", comes back with his own generality instead quoting my "lie"?
You.
You're a piece of shit, and I'm tired of talking to you.
Yup, what I thought. You repeat the pattern of never substantiating your claims, because you can't, because facts don't match your lies and imaginary worldview.
I return the question to you, and ask again for you to quote my lie. That means copy and paste my words verbatim from when I lied. Apparently you are too stupid or are ethically challenged to do so.
Yup, when pressed, you again failed to quote me. You can't, because I didn't lie, and you are a pathetic liar yourself.
I gave you a simple and fair challenge: quote my lie. As I predicted, you couldn't, because you are a liar.
F*CK instead of FUCK.
I've seen this in his posts before. I think it's lame. If you want to fucking swear, then fucking swear.
I'm not wrong I'm just leaving it to the experts of which neither of us are.
You're a liar. First, you took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to gain information is not torture all on your own. When I actually provide quoted references from the "experts" that contradict your disdainful position, you have no reply and instead resort to insults or other bluster. Anything to avoid addressing the references.
And if you think "honest debate" involves insults
If the shoe fits, wear it. If you take a position that torture isn't torture, I'll call you a hypocrite and evil. You haven't been shy with insults. In fact, that's your fallback position when you run out of arguments.
trivialising a very serious issue
That's what you did by saying twisting people's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information is not torture.
lying about what the other person has written
Again you have repeated the charge of lying, but when I asked you last time to name when I lied, you had no response. I say again, what lie? Quote please. You can't, which makes you the liar.
your love of torture is not your only major character flaw
Funny, you accuse me of lying about what you have written and then immediately lie about my stance. When did I ever express a "love of torture"? Quote please. You can't, which makes you a liar.
In contrast, you have excused torturous behavior as not being torture, despite all the quoted references which directly contradict your position.
Because I believe in honest debate. You are the one who thinks twisting of limbs and choking is not torture, despite being in line with the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation", which you clearly despise. Why?
Why make feeble attempts to back up your torture-isn't-torture position with imaginary dictionary definitions and ludicrous claims that Amnesty International would not define such as torture? Why ignore and be in contradiction with the near-universal international convention against torture?
All this because you couldn't admit you were wrong.
Still no arguments to make? Why respond?
Does it matter which of those losers the anecdote about trivilising an issue is about - and yes - twisting an arm is trivial compared with the plentiful horror stories about torture.
It's just a pattern of carelessness on your part, but the details also matter. Why does being forced to stand for 4 hours, and Rumsfeld says he does 8-10, constitute trivializing torture? Or did your biased and failed memory just insert Rumsfeld's reply to an unnamed act of torture that went beyond standing?
What's apparent is that the loser trivializing the issue of torture is you. By saying "twisting an arm is trivial compared with the plentiful horror stories about torture", you are taking the same stand of the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" position. Yes, there is a wide spectrum of torture, but we don't excuse the stuff at the lower end because there is so much worse.
Please stop parading your character flaws in front of me and find something more useful and less gruesome to do.
You're the one who has exposed his character flaws for all to see, by trying to trivialize twisting of limbs and choking to gain information as not torture, by ludicrously claiming Amnesty International, of all groups, would not define such as torture, by ignoring the dictionary definition you claimed to be using, and by ignoring the UN convention against torture.