when I worked at Godfather's Pizza, I finally "graduated" to cut table. The guy to cut the pizzas and call out the orders. I used to enjoy having fun sometimes when a pair of semi-buzzed guys would come in and order a pizza. Cut the pizza into 9 pieces with the roller, rather than the rocker, and watch them get upset over who gets the last piece! Ah, fun times as a teenager...
I fully agree... I'd love a netbook but the keyboards are too small for me. Now, on 12.1" and 13" laptops, the keyboard is full-size and it's easy to type. If they could do this double-screen trick on a 12.1" laptop they'd have a real winner, I think...
As far as dollars not coming back, you didn't read the article. It explicitly points out that the dollars do come back, as profit. For a $300 iPhone, about $4 in profits go to China; $150 go to US companies (Apple and distributors). The rest is consumed in making the product, and is spread around the world (ICs, displays, cases, raw materials). Normal trade surplus/deficit calculations do not take these factors into account.
.
As far as selling back, do you know which country is the largest manufacturer in the world? The US would also be the largest exporter in the world if we eliminated much of the taxation on exported products, like Germany and China do (for example, China has a 17% VAT on domestic sales, but only 6% on exports). We're a net importer mainly because of Government tax policy, not because we're not competitive from a business standpoint.
No, the author's point was that - because of the way trade deficit numbers are calculated - we only apparently have a $700 billion annual imbalance. Basically, the way trade stats are worked results in an iPhone showing a $140 deficit, when in fact it completely ignores the $160 of profit made on the product. China makes about $4 in profit.
.
To summarize, the author's contention is that it's not the gross dollar flow that matters, but the retained earnings - the profit - that matters. And in that case, the vast bulk of the money stays right inside the US.
The knock-off iPhones available all over Shanghai all run a broken version of Windows Mobile, or a custom OS. None that I've seen run the iPhone OS...
.
This is the same with most cloned CE products. Knock-off Zunes use a custom firmware, knock-off iPods have their own OS, and so on. The hardware may be the same, but the firmware is usually a custom version, and it's almost always optimized for the Chinese market (being Mandarin with English or other languages a typically-poorly implemented afterthought).
Give me a set of data, and I can guarantee you 100% that I can devise a fitting model that will fit that data with a high level of confidence (much, much higher than the R2 of the CRU's model). And it will say nothing about the future data - not predictive at all.
.
Fitting old data is not science, that's statistics. And they get even statistics really wrong. To be a valid theory it not only has to fit the old data, but reliably predict future data; the CRU's model has shown it cannot predict future data, and now that we have a view into their process and some of the model, we see that it does not even fit the old data - not only the use of magic numbers to skew individual years, but the wholesale tossing of data that doesn't fit their model.
If data and models don't fit, the first thing you question is the model, not the data.
There's only one model that I know that fit the old data AND properly predicted the current cooling trend, and it doesn't use CO2 - it uses solar cycles and cosmic rays. Yet we'll all go on, cheerfully fitting models to old data, watching the predictions miss time and again, and spend trillions of dollars on wasted efforts.
The model fits the old data, and so far has been very accurate in predicting future behavior, yet because it doesn't use CO2 it's thrown out by many "esteemed" climatologists. It goes against the current orthodoxy so it must be ignored. The religion that AGW has become will not tolerate dissent and will not accept data that doesn't fit the model. That's not science, that is religion.
I'm not tossing all climate research out; I'm tossing out that which is based on the CRU or is "validated" because it appeals to its agreement with the CRU. Just like they tossed out data that didn't fit their model (regardless of the accuracy of that data).
Go check out the programming comments from the analysis programs used by your "scientists". They're mystified why a squaring function is returning NEGATIVE numbers.
.
You're reading on/., I'd presume you have some sort of programming or computer background. Start reading through that programmer's note file, then come back and tell me you think they're aware of what's going on and are solid scientists. If you're getting NEGATIVE VALUES when you square a real number (a mathematical impossibility) then you're completely screwed.
This isn't science, this is politics masquerading as science.
The FOI rep agreed based upon the testimony of whom? Guys who said they'd rather delete their data than share it with their critics. It's simply unethical and anti-scientific to hold that view.
.
And you're jumping to conclusions about the violations and the "hacker". These are most likely from a whistleblower, based upon the scope and selectiveness of the leak. There's indication of money laundering (putting money in personal accounts to avoid taxation), which alone indemnifies the whistleblower.
But then, without a "crime", it's hard to play the victim, isn't it?
So, to sum up: it's hard to provide the data to back up what you're saying, so you can ignore the laws. It's not what I believe, so I won't provide any data that may disprove my theory.
.
That's not science. If that's what passes for science in the climate field, then it's not science. Titles and institutions notwithstanding.
So what good are the journals, then? Are they to only allow papers that pass the opinion of the majority, and not allow papers that stand on their own merits? Sometimes - especially in poorly understood, evolving fields like climate modeling - you get conflicting papers and reports. You give out what you learn, and hopefully you learn from others.
.
Echo chambers do very little to advance science.
Look, when you write about how to avoid an FOI and direct people to DESTROY INFORMATION BEING REQUESTED, that's a crime. They're Government workers, it's not their data, it OUR data. I'm sorry if it damages the integrity of your heroes, but then they shouldn't try to defraud the people and lie and tamper in the face of LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
.
And if it's about letting the science out, then let it ALL out. Why hide data, why refuse to release R2 data, why try to ostracize other scientists? Science expects ethical people looking for the truth, not slicksters hiding their data, obfuscating the results, destroying data, and trying to spike dissent.
How people can try to rationalize fucking BREAKING THE LAW as "it's too hard" is beyond belief. We should let Bernie Madoff walk, it was too hard for him to keep track of all the money. Never should have gone after Enron, too much work for the books to be scoured.
Good god, listen to yourself. You're defending people who's own WORDS admit they are committing crimes by destroying data and avoiding FOI requests. All because, apparently, you support their cause.
If it's about the science, then SHOW THE DATA, SHOW THE STATISTICAL RESULTS, and ACCEPT dissent. Listen to the words of Richard Feynmen, one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century:
The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.
This isn't about AGW or anti-AGW; it's about a group of Government-paid scientists behaving most unscientific, ruining the integrity that science once had.
Then Phil Jones will release the raw data, not just his massaged results? Mann will release the statistical intepretation - including the R2 values - for his hockey stick graphs? These guys discussing how to delete data to avoid answering FOIs for the data is an example of good science?
.
The corruption of science in this case is startling; banning dissent, fabricating data, falsifying data, LYING about the presence/absence of data, lying about results to get pre-ordained results, this group has sullied the entire IPCC and the climate research field by their actions.
The most influential climate lab. The one that contributed the most to the IPCC. The lab that used its influence to try to stifle the debate in scientific journals, because they dared to publish some research that came to different conclusions. The same guys whose work was the basis for dozens of other climate researchers, but now throw it all into doubt.
.
For or against AGW, doesn't matter. These guys massively harmed the scientific community as a whole, and with their position, they have poisoned any work many other honest researchers are doing. They are charlatans and definitely not scientists; researchers, maybe but not scientists.
And getting back to the origin of this thread, the IPCC report should be thrown away, because it is - in large part - based on this group. We're going to take literally trillions of dollars to fix a problem that is largely championed on bad science. That's bad for science as a whole, because it's a waste of a lot of money that could be spent on more science research.
These guys are bad for science as a whole; you wish to excuse them because they support your position. How about stopping and looking at the science critically, and looking at what these fraudsters did, and making the connection that MAYBE A LOT OF THE REPORTS PUSHED BY THIS GROUP ARE FALSE.
Take away what is based from Hadley CRU and you end up with a much more even ratio of AGW/non-AGW results. Meaning the science isn't close to being "settled", and there isn't "consensus" on what to do.
It's fraud, and you want to excuse it. There's no use trying to explain it any more, you'll simply excuse it. That's your loss, I would hope that people on/. would be a little more demanding in how science is done - you know, that whole scientific process thing. Apparently that's not the case, some want science done to support their pre-ordained conclusions. So be it.
Why the fuck would anyone publish their work in a journal with an editor that is busy exercising editorial control completely at odds with what most people in the field believe?
I always thought scientific journals should judge submissions based upon the quality of the data and the research, not if they passed some popularity contest. If science is down to simply popularity or majority group-think, then science is dead.
Scientists discussing how to avoid FOI requests for their data, telling each other to remember deleting files and data about certain events, discussing how to falsify data to counter temperature anomalies that don't fit in with their models... Yeah, there's nothing there when you're a True Believer, apparently!
Climate science is real science. Weren't you just arguing that all science is messy, so we shouldn't use it? So using "REAL SCIENCE" would entail using messy science.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Science is messy, and when we find out we're wrong - or that it's been purposefully faked - you know, no longer real science - then you best stop listening to it, get yourself squared away, and start again.
and when we find out that stuff was made up, hidden, and lied about we STOP WHAT WE'RE DOING and re-evaluate?
When did we find that out?
On the 18th, when these files became available. And they confirmed that the "scientists" were hiding data, trying to delete information (for what reason, I wonder?), and simply made stuff up so that it "fits" better with their desired results.
When you learn you're on the wrong road, do you continue to drive on, or do you stop, re-evaluate, and then start again?
When did we learn that we're on "the wrong road"?
See above reply. Apparently you're OK with using bad data; hey, if you want to use it, then by all means! Go ahead and proclaim it loudly! Don't be surprised when you're ignored and rejected, though...
I'm not against change, I'm against using lies and falsified data on which to base decisions.
What lies and falsified data are you talking about?
See above. Check out the hundreds of other posts here identifying e-mails by these liars where they talk about skewing data to fit their models (you're supposed to build your model with data, not select your data to support your pre-determined model), where they hide problems with their models, where they conspire to delete data and models to avoid FOI requests.
If you want to base your life on lies and fraud, be my guest. To bury your head in the sand is your choice. These clowns have done a tremendous amount of damage to climate science by their decidedly illegal actions.
Pro-AGW or anti-AGW shouldn't matter; fraud and lies should be denounced and rejected within science as strongly as possible. These fraudsters have hurt the entire scientific community. Too bad you cannot see that...
Slashdot Mirror
BLAME CANADA!
when I worked at Godfather's Pizza, I finally "graduated" to cut table. The guy to cut the pizzas and call out the orders. I used to enjoy having fun sometimes when a pair of semi-buzzed guys would come in and order a pizza. Cut the pizza into 9 pieces with the roller, rather than the rocker, and watch them get upset over who gets the last piece! Ah, fun times as a teenager...
A handful of flour - good and covering just about everything within a 10 yard radius!
Of course there is - the man who created it!
Discuss how consensus rules Science, and how to properly dispose of raw data?
I fully agree... I'd love a netbook but the keyboards are too small for me. Now, on 12.1" and 13" laptops, the keyboard is full-size and it's easy to type. If they could do this double-screen trick on a 12.1" laptop they'd have a real winner, I think...
As far as selling back, do you know which country is the largest manufacturer in the world? The US would also be the largest exporter in the world if we eliminated much of the taxation on exported products, like Germany and China do (for example, China has a 17% VAT on domestic sales, but only 6% on exports). We're a net importer mainly because of Government tax policy, not because we're not competitive from a business standpoint.
To summarize, the author's contention is that it's not the gross dollar flow that matters, but the retained earnings - the profit - that matters. And in that case, the vast bulk of the money stays right inside the US.
This is the same with most cloned CE products. Knock-off Zunes use a custom firmware, knock-off iPods have their own OS, and so on. The hardware may be the same, but the firmware is usually a custom version, and it's almost always optimized for the Chinese market (being Mandarin with English or other languages a typically-poorly implemented afterthought).
Fitting old data is not science, that's statistics. And they get even statistics really wrong. To be a valid theory it not only has to fit the old data, but reliably predict future data; the CRU's model has shown it cannot predict future data, and now that we have a view into their process and some of the model, we see that it does not even fit the old data - not only the use of magic numbers to skew individual years, but the wholesale tossing of data that doesn't fit their model.
If data and models don't fit, the first thing you question is the model, not the data.
There's only one model that I know that fit the old data AND properly predicted the current cooling trend, and it doesn't use CO2 - it uses solar cycles and cosmic rays. Yet we'll all go on, cheerfully fitting models to old data, watching the predictions miss time and again, and spend trillions of dollars on wasted efforts.
The model fits the old data, and so far has been very accurate in predicting future behavior, yet because it doesn't use CO2 it's thrown out by many "esteemed" climatologists. It goes against the current orthodoxy so it must be ignored. The religion that AGW has become will not tolerate dissent and will not accept data that doesn't fit the model. That's not science, that is religion.
I'm not tossing all climate research out; I'm tossing out that which is based on the CRU or is "validated" because it appeals to its agreement with the CRU. Just like they tossed out data that didn't fit their model (regardless of the accuracy of that data).
Not just you, it tires out George Jetson as well!
It's all about simplifying the user interface, to make it more intuitive. Have you seen what they're doing to replace the keyboard as well?
You're reading on
This isn't science, this is politics masquerading as science.
And you're jumping to conclusions about the violations and the "hacker". These are most likely from a whistleblower, based upon the scope and selectiveness of the leak. There's indication of money laundering (putting money in personal accounts to avoid taxation), which alone indemnifies the whistleblower.
But then, without a "crime", it's hard to play the victim, isn't it?
That's not science. If that's what passes for science in the climate field, then it's not science. Titles and institutions notwithstanding.
Echo chambers do very little to advance science.
And if it's about letting the science out, then let it ALL out. Why hide data, why refuse to release R2 data, why try to ostracize other scientists? Science expects ethical people looking for the truth, not slicksters hiding their data, obfuscating the results, destroying data, and trying to spike dissent.
How people can try to rationalize fucking BREAKING THE LAW as "it's too hard" is beyond belief. We should let Bernie Madoff walk, it was too hard for him to keep track of all the money. Never should have gone after Enron, too much work for the books to be scoured.
Good god, listen to yourself. You're defending people who's own WORDS admit they are committing crimes by destroying data and avoiding FOI requests. All because, apparently, you support their cause.
If it's about the science, then SHOW THE DATA, SHOW THE STATISTICAL RESULTS, and ACCEPT dissent. Listen to the words of Richard Feynmen, one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century:
This isn't about AGW or anti-AGW; it's about a group of Government-paid scientists behaving most unscientific, ruining the integrity that science once had.
Great! Let's eliminate dissent, and let emotions run the scientific community, then, since we're all humans. Fuck the facts, it feels good!
Then Phil Jones will release the raw data, not just his massaged results? Mann will release the statistical intepretation - including the R2 values - for his hockey stick graphs? These guys discussing how to delete data to avoid answering FOIs for the data is an example of good science?
The corruption of science in this case is startling; banning dissent, fabricating data, falsifying data, LYING about the presence/absence of data, lying about results to get pre-ordained results, this group has sullied the entire IPCC and the climate research field by their actions.
For or against AGW, doesn't matter. These guys massively harmed the scientific community as a whole, and with their position, they have poisoned any work many other honest researchers are doing. They are charlatans and definitely not scientists; researchers, maybe but not scientists.
And getting back to the origin of this thread, the IPCC report should be thrown away, because it is - in large part - based on this group. We're going to take literally trillions of dollars to fix a problem that is largely championed on bad science. That's bad for science as a whole, because it's a waste of a lot of money that could be spent on more science research.
These guys are bad for science as a whole; you wish to excuse them because they support your position. How about stopping and looking at the science critically, and looking at what these fraudsters did, and making the connection that MAYBE A LOT OF THE REPORTS PUSHED BY THIS GROUP ARE FALSE.
Take away what is based from Hadley CRU and you end up with a much more even ratio of AGW/non-AGW results. Meaning the science isn't close to being "settled", and there isn't "consensus" on what to do.
It's fraud, and you want to excuse it. There's no use trying to explain it any more, you'll simply excuse it. That's your loss, I would hope that people on /. would be a little more demanding in how science is done - you know, that whole scientific process thing. Apparently that's not the case, some want science done to support their pre-ordained conclusions. So be it.
This is /. - I thought our mantra was that data wants to be free? Shouldn't we be considered liberators for posting it?
Why the fuck would anyone publish their work in a journal with an editor that is busy exercising editorial control completely at odds with what most people in the field believe?
I always thought scientific journals should judge submissions based upon the quality of the data and the research, not if they passed some popularity contest. If science is down to simply popularity or majority group-think, then science is dead.
Scientists discussing how to avoid FOI requests for their data, telling each other to remember deleting files and data about certain events, discussing how to falsify data to counter temperature anomalies that don't fit in with their models... Yeah, there's nothing there when you're a True Believer, apparently!
Climate science is real science. Weren't you just arguing that all science is messy, so we shouldn't use it? So using "REAL SCIENCE" would entail using messy science.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Science is messy, and when we find out we're wrong - or that it's been purposefully faked - you know, no longer real science - then you best stop listening to it, get yourself squared away, and start again.
and when we find out that stuff was made up, hidden, and lied about we STOP WHAT WE'RE DOING and re-evaluate?
When did we find that out?
On the 18th, when these files became available. And they confirmed that the "scientists" were hiding data, trying to delete information (for what reason, I wonder?), and simply made stuff up so that it "fits" better with their desired results.
When you learn you're on the wrong road, do you continue to drive on, or do you stop, re-evaluate, and then start again?
When did we learn that we're on "the wrong road"?
See above reply. Apparently you're OK with using bad data; hey, if you want to use it, then by all means! Go ahead and proclaim it loudly! Don't be surprised when you're ignored and rejected, though...
I'm not against change, I'm against using lies and falsified data on which to base decisions.
What lies and falsified data are you talking about?
See above. Check out the hundreds of other posts here identifying e-mails by these liars where they talk about skewing data to fit their models (you're supposed to build your model with data, not select your data to support your pre-determined model), where they hide problems with their models, where they conspire to delete data and models to avoid FOI requests.
If you want to base your life on lies and fraud, be my guest. To bury your head in the sand is your choice. These clowns have done a tremendous amount of damage to climate science by their decidedly illegal actions.
Pro-AGW or anti-AGW shouldn't matter; fraud and lies should be denounced and rejected within science as strongly as possible. These fraudsters have hurt the entire scientific community. Too bad you cannot see that...