You should probably stop watching Noels HQ and reading the daily mail.
British Crime Survey 2008-2009 states -
The BCS and police recorded crime differ in their coverage of crime. Overall,
crime as measured by the BCS shows no change compared with the 2007/08
BCS with no change in most crime types. Crimes recorded by the police show
a five per cent decrease compared with 2007/08, with decreases in most
crime types.
HOW HAVE LEVELS OF CRIME CHANGED OVER THE LONGER TERM?
Long-term trends show that BCS crime rose steadily from 1981 through to the
early 1990s, peaking in 1995. Crime then fell, making 1995 a significant
turning point. The fall was substantial until 2004/05. Since then, BCS crime
has shown little overall change with the exception of a statistically significant
reduction of 10 per cent in 2007/08 (the lowest ever level since the first results
in 1981). The apparent increase of five per cent in BCS crime this year is not
statistically significant. Trends in BCS violence, vehicle-related theft and
burglary broadly reflect the trend in all BCS crime.
you will want it, it's fucking awesome. It's the kind of game that is simple and addictive as hell and would work on an 8bit micro, but has HD 3D graphics. The best kind of game.
I'll keep an open mind - I'm not sure vaccines either do or don't cause autism.
if you have a genuinely open mind you owe it to yourself to dig a tiny bit deeper and it'll quickly become blindingly clear that they don't. Seriously - the claims of the noisy minority in this issue are absolutely paper thin, and have been conclusively and empirically refuted time and time again.
Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 1
my point was that i DONT have flashblock installed. I just have noscript which everyone keeps saying doesn't allow individual flash objects within a page to be allowed selectively. They keep saying it's all or nothing. What i was saying is that is not true for me for some reason. Trust me, i really dont want flash running in my browser at all.
Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 1
eh? when i go to a site with more than one flash object on a page with noscript, i have to click every flash object individually to get them all to load. It's rather tedious when a website has 8 different flash objects for its navigation.
I'm not sure, but i think that Linux stores an offset from the Hardware clock to its internal software clock. You could set the hardware clock to 1/1/1970 and it wouldn't matter as long as the the kernel knows how much of an offset is needed to set the software clock correctly. I think it also records if and how much the hardware clock runs fast/slow so that it can adjust the offset for inaccuracy as time goes past. Then if you have NTP set up it just recalibrates the software clock over the net while it's running anyway.
Objector is a good one - if you prefix it with "conscientious" though the people who accept AGW won't want to use it as it implies they aren't conscientious. Accepters and Objectors seem like the most neutral, succinct and unambiguous terms. You can then go on to argue about whether or not Accepters are conscientious without any bickering about labels.
Education is far more effective than prohibition. It always far more practical and effective to convince, rather than coerce - otherwise you are herding cats. Forcing people to behave a certain way against their will is unsustainable and expensive and creates way more problems than it solves. Look at alcohol prohibition or the "war" on drugs. It costs a fortune, criminalises harmless people and creates a criminal underworld, and exacerbates the problems that it purports to combat.
Religion is a symptom of irrational thinking, not a cause. Trying to deconvert people is treating the symptom - giving the general population a solid education in logical and rational thinking would empower them to be less easily mislead by rhetorical manipulation. This would improve society across the board.
Of course this likely won't eliminate religion, but that is not necessary and anyone that is calling for it is, frankly, thinking like a totalitarian control freak. People need to be empowered with more decision making tools and left to make their own choices. I would bet that religious extremism and religious interference in politics would be reduced to inconsequential levels if this was the case.
It's a semantic smokescreen induced by the fact that AGW denialists insist on referring to themselves as "skeptics", and so does the mass media, who use the common usage of the term rather then the rigourous scientific term. It's awkward because if you refer to someone as a denialist you come across as strident and closed-minded, so you fall back on the common term of "skeptic" because the only other option would be to invent a new term. Perhaps a new term is needed.
The current consensus on the existence of AGW has been arrived at by the process of scientific skepticism. The fact that a group of people who don't like the results of the research have decided to misappropriate the term "skeptic" for a campaign of denialism, bears no reflection on the quality of skepticism employed in the original research. Denialism requires sowing confusion and FUD - misappropriating the meaning of words is a highly effective method.
As has been pointed out, I was responding to the previous poster's demand for links. The approval or disapproval of creationists is neither here nor there, and I certainly wasn't trying to make the case that it mattered. The only point I was personally making was about the quote mining, which would of course still be an indication of dishonesty irrespective of whether creationists employed the tactic.
It is the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well", and I don't think that just because creationists don't like AGW that it must be real. I was merely answering the post immediately above me, which demanded evidence of an overlap between AGW deniers and creationists, so I gave it.
Also, falling into fallacious thinking doesn't require severe cognitive dissonance or outright lying - all humans do it every day. So had I been using the disapproval of creationists as evidence for AGW, I could have done so quite innocently, simply by not thinking my argument through rigourously.
Compiling a lengthy list of quotes that have been carefully obfuscated requires deliberate intent. Hence, the person doing it is either happy to lie, or able to employ heavy cognitive dissonance to allow themselves to believe that what they are doing is not lying. This is the point I was making. The fact that creationists do it is irrelevant, and unnecessary to the point being made, which stands on its own.
Your story is suspiciously vague. For all we know the police had a legitimate reason to disrupt whatever it was you were doing, and you're just bitterly rationalising it away as some kind of fascist act of suppression.
There's no such charge as "jaywalking" in Britain. We can cross the road wherever we like, unlike the fascist american dictatorship that forces its downtrodden subjects to cross only at government sanctioned cross walks.
You should go and visit "uncommon descent" the blog HQ of intelligent design. They're always bringing up AGW skepticism, since the notion of a far-reaching conspiracy of scientific propaganda and elitist repression is the same excuse they use to wave away the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is in favour of evolution. Throwing their lot in with other denialists "makes their worldview make sense".
Global warming appears to have been occurring for the last 30-50 years.
This warming may only be a short-term fluctuation but could be a longer-term trend.
Evidence is still inconclusive whether man is causing the warming.
No "natural" causes for global warming have been confirmed.
One possible new theory is that galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) modulated by solar activity affects low-level cloud cover and is causing the warming.
Global warming may affect some parts of our society negatively but would likely benefit others. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. Compared to climate changes which have occurred in earth history, a temperature rise of a few degrees is a small fluctuation which will not lead to a complete melting of the polar caps or another ice age. Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times
The tactic used by Lomborg (quote mining) is the definitive modus operandi of a denialist. It is the bread and butter of Creationists, and for the person employing it, it is a strong indicator of either severe cognitive dissonance or outright lying.
Uninformed protestion from the peanut gallery does nothing but impede science by inserting political resistance to the scientific process.
It doesn't matter how you cut it - the combined noisy opinions of a rabble of politicians, idealogues, aggravated tabloid readers and unqualified and uninformed people waving around their "i'm a scientist" badge despite having the same level of qualification regarding climate science as any high school gradute, has absolutley no legitimate scientific credibility when compared to the community of climate scientists that have spent the past few decades using exactly the tools you describe above to arrive at the consensus that AGW is real and will have extremely harmful consequences for the human race in general.
Any scientist or group of scientists that could produce a body of work demonstrating that AGW is not happening would make a fucking fortune. There is no incentive for climate scientists to "toe a party line", and a gigantic carrot hanging out there for any of them that don't. Yet still the consensus remains.
Slashdot Mirror
You should probably stop watching Noels HQ and reading the daily mail.
British Crime Survey 2008-2009 states -
The BCS and police recorded crime differ in their coverage of crime. Overall, crime as measured by the BCS shows no change compared with the 2007/08 BCS with no change in most crime types. Crimes recorded by the police show a five per cent decrease compared with 2007/08, with decreases in most crime types.
HOW HAVE LEVELS OF CRIME CHANGED OVER THE LONGER TERM?
Long-term trends show that BCS crime rose steadily from 1981 through to the early 1990s, peaking in 1995. Crime then fell, making 1995 a significant turning point. The fall was substantial until 2004/05. Since then, BCS crime has shown little overall change with the exception of a statistically significant reduction of 10 per cent in 2007/08 (the lowest ever level since the first results in 1981). The apparent increase of five per cent in BCS crime this year is not statistically significant. Trends in BCS violence, vehicle-related theft and burglary broadly reflect the trend in all BCS crime.
the full report is here
you will want it, it's fucking awesome. It's the kind of game that is simple and addictive as hell and would work on an 8bit micro, but has HD 3D graphics. The best kind of game.
presumably the procedure is inherently lossy, and 40% is the most efficient trade off between effort and effect.
I'll keep an open mind - I'm not sure vaccines either do or don't cause autism.
if you have a genuinely open mind you owe it to yourself to dig a tiny bit deeper and it'll quickly become blindingly clear that they don't. Seriously - the claims of the noisy minority in this issue are absolutely paper thin, and have been conclusively and empirically refuted time and time again.
my point was that i DONT have flashblock installed. I just have noscript which everyone keeps saying doesn't allow individual flash objects within a page to be allowed selectively. They keep saying it's all or nothing. What i was saying is that is not true for me for some reason. Trust me, i really dont want flash running in my browser at all.
eh? when i go to a site with more than one flash object on a page with noscript, i have to click every flash object individually to get them all to load. It's rather tedious when a website has 8 different flash objects for its navigation.
try using an open uk proxy http://www.xroxy.com/proxy-country-GB.htm
anybody who doesn't have in-depth knowledge about the topics discussed is also an idot.
You sir, are an idot of the highest order.
I'm not sure, but i think that Linux stores an offset from the Hardware clock to its internal software clock. You could set the hardware clock to 1/1/1970 and it wouldn't matter as long as the the kernel knows how much of an offset is needed to set the software clock correctly. I think it also records if and how much the hardware clock runs fast/slow so that it can adjust the offset for inaccuracy as time goes past. Then if you have NTP set up it just recalibrates the software clock over the net while it's running anyway.
Perhaps the PS3 kernel has similar functionality.
There's plenty of history - a lot of information about the evolution of the solar system is encoded in the geology of the moon.
Objector is a good one - if you prefix it with "conscientious" though the people who accept AGW won't want to use it as it implies they aren't conscientious. Accepters and Objectors seem like the most neutral, succinct and unambiguous terms. You can then go on to argue about whether or not Accepters are conscientious without any bickering about labels.
Education is far more effective than prohibition. It always far more practical and effective to convince, rather than coerce - otherwise you are herding cats. Forcing people to behave a certain way against their will is unsustainable and expensive and creates way more problems than it solves. Look at alcohol prohibition or the "war" on drugs. It costs a fortune, criminalises harmless people and creates a criminal underworld, and exacerbates the problems that it purports to combat.
Religion is a symptom of irrational thinking, not a cause. Trying to deconvert people is treating the symptom - giving the general population a solid education in logical and rational thinking would empower them to be less easily mislead by rhetorical manipulation. This would improve society across the board.
Of course this likely won't eliminate religion, but that is not necessary and anyone that is calling for it is, frankly, thinking like a totalitarian control freak. People need to be empowered with more decision making tools and left to make their own choices. I would bet that religious extremism and religious interference in politics would be reduced to inconsequential levels if this was the case.
It's a semantic smokescreen induced by the fact that AGW denialists insist on referring to themselves as "skeptics", and so does the mass media, who use the common usage of the term rather then the rigourous scientific term. It's awkward because if you refer to someone as a denialist you come across as strident and closed-minded, so you fall back on the common term of "skeptic" because the only other option would be to invent a new term. Perhaps a new term is needed.
The current consensus on the existence of AGW has been arrived at by the process of scientific skepticism. The fact that a group of people who don't like the results of the research have decided to misappropriate the term "skeptic" for a campaign of denialism, bears no reflection on the quality of skepticism employed in the original research. Denialism requires sowing confusion and FUD - misappropriating the meaning of words is a highly effective method.
As has been pointed out, I was responding to the previous poster's demand for links. The approval or disapproval of creationists is neither here nor there, and I certainly wasn't trying to make the case that it mattered. The only point I was personally making was about the quote mining, which would of course still be an indication of dishonesty irrespective of whether creationists employed the tactic.
It is the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well", and I don't think that just because creationists don't like AGW that it must be real. I was merely answering the post immediately above me, which demanded evidence of an overlap between AGW deniers and creationists, so I gave it.
Also, falling into fallacious thinking doesn't require severe cognitive dissonance or outright lying - all humans do it every day. So had I been using the disapproval of creationists as evidence for AGW, I could have done so quite innocently, simply by not thinking my argument through rigourously.
Compiling a lengthy list of quotes that have been carefully obfuscated requires deliberate intent. Hence, the person doing it is either happy to lie, or able to employ heavy cognitive dissonance to allow themselves to believe that what they are doing is not lying. This is the point I was making. The fact that creationists do it is irrelevant, and unnecessary to the point being made, which stands on its own.
is that encrypted?
Your story is suspiciously vague. For all we know the police had a legitimate reason to disrupt whatever it was you were doing, and you're just bitterly rationalising it away as some kind of fascist act of suppression.
See how annoying that is?
You should go and visit "uncommon descent" the blog HQ of intelligent design. They're always bringing up AGW skepticism, since the notion of a far-reaching conspiracy of scientific propaganda and elitist repression is the same excuse they use to wave away the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is in favour of evolution. Throwing their lot in with other denialists "makes their worldview make sense".
Also institute for creation research states:
Global warming may affect some parts of our society negatively but would likely benefit others. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. Compared to climate changes which have occurred in earth history, a temperature rise of a few degrees is a small fluctuation which will not lead to a complete melting of the polar caps or another ice age. Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times
Answers in genesis cry conspiracy and even cite "The Day After Tomorrow"!
The tactic used by Lomborg (quote mining) is the definitive modus operandi of a denialist. It is the bread and butter of Creationists, and for the person employing it, it is a strong indicator of either severe cognitive dissonance or outright lying.
Wow, what thorough and informative rebuttal.
look at his name - he's a pizza themed troll.
And that post would make you angry internet dweeb D.
Uninformed protestion from the peanut gallery does nothing but impede science by inserting political resistance to the scientific process.
It doesn't matter how you cut it - the combined noisy opinions of a rabble of politicians, idealogues, aggravated tabloid readers and unqualified and uninformed people waving around their "i'm a scientist" badge despite having the same level of qualification regarding climate science as any high school gradute, has absolutley no legitimate scientific credibility when compared to the community of climate scientists that have spent the past few decades using exactly the tools you describe above to arrive at the consensus that AGW is real and will have extremely harmful consequences for the human race in general.
Any scientist or group of scientists that could produce a body of work demonstrating that AGW is not happening would make a fucking fortune. There is no incentive for climate scientists to "toe a party line", and a gigantic carrot hanging out there for any of them that don't. Yet still the consensus remains.
no, it sounds like a poorly thought-out paranoid fantasy
I can't believe you went to the trouble of putting the "n" in square brackets to indicate that you changed the case in your quote.