I also think they're making some assumptions here. I know of no case where two mutually combative persons engaging in fisticuffs were violated, ever. If they failed to stop or resisted arrest then, sure. However, if they consented? I know of no cases that have been prosecuted. There may be an exception to this for domestic violence assaults though I'm not sure that the victim would have ever really given consent or was of sound enough mind to give informed consent in those cases.
Norm? No. Most people are cowards, at heart. I do think it should be legal, however. Yes, I think two individuals should have the right to self-determination. I think they should be of sound mind when making that choice. Hell, I'm pretty sure it's not even prosecuted in my state unless you kill someone.
I'd enjoy an application like this, not to fight (I'm too old for that, these days). I'd love to go watch. Two meatsticks kicking the shit out of each other is great entertainment.
I do have multiple A&B charges on my record and one conviction and two losses in civil court. I've been the meatstick kicking the shit out of someone before. Sometimes, it was not consensual in some sense but the State allowed a defense of a third party's defense by statute. The criminal aspect, in the most interesting event, was when he was no longer putting up a defense and I sat on his chest while slapping him over and over again saying, "So you like to hit women? How do you like being my bitch?" *sighs* I spent a night in jail and lost in civil court. It gets worse but that's too long to type out here.
That should not be legal. In the above, I violated the law and was properly punished for it - including a rather large financial settlement that involved him and another party. However, if I'd not gone that far - I'd have been perfectly legal. I do think that I should be allowed to consent to a fight. I'd even go so far as to say that I should be allowed to consent to a fight involving weapons.
I think, in my state, they drop the charges if there's no complaint filed. So, the cops may arrest you (unlikely) but if it was mutual they're probably not going to do anything about it. Domestic violence is a different charge and doesn't require the victim to even testify.
I'll get one of the teachers to look into it for me. i'm just a resident upholding my end of the social contract. I'm sure one of them will be happy to take care of it for me. There's something to be said for living in a small community.
I now have two turbines, the second was put in during the late summer. I live in the woods. I'm also on the side of a mountain, when home. They're also in a clearing. But, it's still pretty woodsy. I have solar as well. I now create more power than I consume. I'm unlikely to really "break even" with upgrades and maintaining them but that's not why I did it.
The power company doesn't have to pay me for the power that I create but they do have to give me credit. I can then sell those credits or I can donate them to a local school (or charity) and write down the amount on my state tax bill. It's not that much of a clearing either but the trees will never get tall and there's an obscene amount of wind power on the side of the mountain. They're up above my place so they're at a higher elevation.
There's a solar and wind guy down in Starks, does a good job and took care of the whole process for me. A portion of my basement is now its own separate room and houses some racks full of batteries and all of the equipment is in there. I'm a bit tired or I'd go through my back posts. I've shared pics of the partial setup in the past.
My vehicles are, for the most part, efficient for what I do. I don't own a Prius or anything but I do plan on picking up the new model of Tesla that has a 500 mile range. That will be enough to get me to town and back as well as remain heated during a crisis involving snow or ice - should I get caught in a squall or blizzard and be taken by surprise. It happens up there.
It's not looking likely that I'll be home at all this winter. So I won't truly be able to say that I have enough power for winter consumption but I should based on prior history. Obviously, I've still got a mains connection. Yes, I do have diesel backup and a permitted underground storage tank. However, I'm not really some ecological disaster that is hell bent on destroying Mother Nature. I'm kind of fond of her, that's why I moved there.
I just figured some reality from someone who actually does live in the woods might be pertinent. I'm pretty sure that the OP, up the thread, was just trolling. Ah well, I didn't have anything better to do.
Nominally they were against the Muslims but, no, I've never thought that was the real reason. I've always assumed it to be a land and power grab with some intrigue being because the power grab wasn't actually always where they were crusading. I believe that I've also heard a theory that it was a way to get a collective going (one of the early crusades) in an effort to reunite Rome but I'd not dare make an authoritative statement on that.
That'd be why I put the "final solution" in quotes. It was mostly tongue in cheek. He did want some of them eliminated, though. I forget the name of the fort but they had that under siege for quite a while before the Romans built a giant dirt ramp up the top of it and were going to attack the following day - while doing the Roman thing of sealing them in. The Jews killed themselves though there's rumor of a mother with two children who survived by hiding in the water supply cave system.
The historians tend to agree that the reason for doing so was because he wanted to alienate them from their identity and, you know, get them to stop rebelling. One group in particular, the Assines (spelling) I think, were a particular thorn in their side for a while. They were pretty dedicated, some of them.
I watch way too many history documentaries. I don't remember all the names and places, I sure as hell don't remember the dates. They're watched for entertainment, not for study. Documentaries is about all I watch, actually. I try to get them from a variety of sources because there's a lot of propaganda in some of them. My current "thing" is finding barely translated WWII documentaries (made post fall of the Iron Curtain) from Russians. They're pretty good. Still right full of some really selective history but good, nonetheless. You can tell when Putin came into office. The documentaries became even more selective with their content.
The USSR gave out millions and millions of medals after the Great Patriotic War. But, I digress - I usually do.
Wow... I'll sell you a pair of socks for 1,000,000,000 and, tomorrow, I'll (really, I'm an honest person) buy that pair of socks back from you for 900.000.000. It costs money to launder money, you know. You needn't wash the socks.
My ISP expressly has no limits on my DSL service. They're the exception. Pretty much everywhere else, I've not once bought, "Unlimited." A number of times, I have purchased, "Unlimited*." When I purchase the one with the asterisk, I read the fine print and then don't sign if I don't agree to it. My eyesight isn't even the greatest any more but the print is never so fine that I can't read it. I will sit there and read every single page before signing a contract - in some cases. I'm almost certainly going to read it if it says, "Unlimited*" because I want to know what those limits really are.
Back in the day, with POTS, if you left your phone off the hook then you were probably stopping others from making a call. They'd probably come punch you in the nuts. You're just young and don't actually know any history.
I hold my Ph.D in Applied Mathematics. Of course I'm not a scientist. I am a mathematician, I tell scientists that they're wrong!
Err... Sorry, I just like saying that. I've never actually had cause to actually tell a scientist that they were really wrong but some of my undergrad time was spent checking the maths for other disciplines, some of which was not entirely correct. So, maybe, sort of, kind of accurate. I guess...
I don't haul often, maybe a half dozen times a year. I've a two-car trailer that I haul around to take cars to shows during the summer if I'm being less than lazy. I prefer to just drive them because that's why I bought them and I don't actually own any trailer queens. If I can't or won't drive it then I don't want it.
Because of this, I just suck it up and insure my license. Anything I drive is fully insured. It's costly. Anyhow, for me to tow two cars (both of which probably aren't all that efficient, to be honest, depending on which two they are) is much more efficient with my truck. I also plow with it. I've also done some work with it. Meh... I like it. It's not like I don't have more efficient things to drive that I do drive, when the situation warrants. I do live in the mountains of Maine.
You're welcome!:D Consider it motivation to buy yourself a book. There's only 56 of them in the school, cute little buggers. They invite me to plays and concerts. They can't sing and they act like monsters but I go. I usually take 'em to the above mentioned bowling alley afterwards. It's worth it - they send me cookies, Christmas cards, Valentine's Day cards, and usually Mrs. Turner's 4th grade class makes me some "art." I don't know what it is that they drew but I do hang them up for a while.
Anyhow, I had no idea that Scholastic did gift cards now? I will absolutely, certainly, look into this. There's no way I could get them Amazon cards, I just couldn't do it. I thought about it, long and hard, and decided that I just could not, in good faith, do that to them.
Also, I made sure the kids had enough to buy at least one book. $10 would still do that a couple of years ago. So, spending extra was *snickers* entirely up to you. *nods* I didn't make you do anything. The bookstore loved it and actually sold them to me at half price. Yeah, we had a good con going. I was nice about it. I gave extras so that the teachers could hand out the cards to those who had extra siblings or whatnot.
The nearest department store is down in Farmington and a Wal*Mart. I'm sure as hell not giving the kids gift cards to that store. I'd sooner just give 'em cash.
Sincere thanks. I wonder if they'll give me a discount if I buy enough of them?
I am not a client scientist (this is getting old). I can not opine on the quality of their work. However, if you'll allow me some presumption...
This is pure conjecture but how I would do it, I think, given what I know:
They take past data and crunch it - and then see what their models do with that data. The check to see that the past data matches reality. No? They change nonsensical data (like removing the guy that is driving drunk and backwards down a one way street). The check again. No? They adjust the model. Match? Probably not. Close enough? Possibly (and for brevity, we're going with this 'cause this can take a while). Take new and more current data. Remove nonsensical data (like the guy driving drunk and backwards down a one way street). Run model - this time allowing the model to make predictions as to possible outcomes. Someone, somewhere, presumably picks the worst possible outcome and runs with it to a journalist. (Not a step in my business, I'm guessing at this point.)
And, I kind of hope that is how they're doing it - except for the last part, that seems like it's a bit hasty and alarmist. However, it does get them attention. It does get them increased funding.
I make no claims as to the validity of their science. I make no claims as to the validity of their data manipulations. I am not qualified to do so. I do know that you do manipulate both data and models to reflect reality. Why? 'Cause if you don't, shit doesn't work right. No matter how hard you try. This much data, with this many variables, is not a simple examine in high school physics or science class. I worked with far less data than these guys do and we had disk arrays that enabled us to work with nearly a TB of data on a pile of clustered servers in the late 1990s. Yes, a TB. In the 1990s. I imagine that's at least an order of magnitude less data than they're working with.
Which means, if they want to make predictions other than purple toadstool that they're probably going to have to do some manipulation of the data, make some presumptions, and model based on that. Is it perfect? I kind of doubt it. Fortunately, they've lots of data and lots of models and a whole shitton of compute cycles to throw at it.
And, again, this does not make me qualified to opine on the science. I can only comment, and did only comment, on the process.
Absolutely. I can neither confirm nor deny that they've achieved a sweet spot. I am not a climate scientist and will not opine on such. There's an acceptable degree of both model and data tweaking. Where that line is drawn is not something I'm qualified to opine on - my comment was in reference to the expressed displeasure of them manipulating the data. Such is not only normal, it is often required, when trying to achieve a result that will actually reflect reality. I make no claims as to the validity of the science for I am not a climate scientist.
They may be raping this data all to hell and back in an effort to make the models say what they want them to say for political or financial motives, that's seemingly what you're wanting me to say. And, it's true. They might be. It is unlikely, but they could be. However, I'd be far more concerned if they were using raw data without actually taking into account a whole host of other variables that then meant adjusting the numbers to suit.
They're attempting to model a chaotic system, not an exercise in a high school physics book.
I make no claims to the validity of the data nor of the models used by client scientists. I am not qualified to opine. I am, however, eminently qualified to opine on the processes involved in modeling large data sets and making predictions based on those results. Thus, I speak to that and that alone. I do not know enough about the subject, the data, or the models used to opine on climate science with any authority.
I think this is a fine point to interject. I am not, nor do I claim to be, a climate scientist. I am, on the other hand, a mathematician. My career was based on modeling from very large data sets. I modeled vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It's akin to attempting to model chaos.
I'll try to keep this simple.
See, you collect a whole bunch of data - everything from weather to time of day to a single individual can have an impact on the throughput of traffic. Then, you crunch this data and you end up with a model and can make predictions on it. Well, you shouldn't. This is why I'm retired today. See, you don't actually make predictions at that point. Instead - you return to the actual data and go out and make physical observations to confirm that your modeling of the existing data is accurate. If it's not then you change your algorithms AND manipulate the data until it matches reality.
Then, and only then, when you've managed to get them "close enough" can you make meaningful predictions and accurate proposals for things like route changes or configurations. You do, indeed, manipulate the data and the math used to crunch that data (an example is dropping outlying data points or optimizing for a specific period of time) until the data matches what you can verify as existing. The world is more than data points... At some point, it becomes so complex that there's absolutely zero chance at achieving perfection. That will not happen.
Now, I don't know shit about climate. I don't know if they're doing this right or wrong or if we're all going to die tomorrow. But I do know that massaging numbers and tweaking models to reflect reality is actually a damned good thing to do. In fact, doing so is why I'm retired and the company is still alive today. Not doing so is why you get some pretty screwed up traffic patterns that looked good on paper but suck in reality. That's what they get for hiring the least expensive companies. Yes, it takes more time, yes, it is more expensive. However, it's not at all unusual to manipulate data to make a model match reality. In fact, if you want to do a good job, it's pretty much a requirement and no - it will never be perfect. We simply can't account for all eventualities. You aim for a 95th percentile or greater in traffic modeling (even less for pedestrian traffic) and call it good.
So, there are probably all sorts of legitimate complaints about climate science. Data manipulation is not one of them. I'd be much more concerned to find out that they were relying on raw data without any manipulation and then comparisons with reality to determine which adjustments need to be made. If no adjustments had to be made, I'd call it straight up bullshit.
Err... End rant! Carry on with the bitch fest but, really, unless you've attempted to model a chaotic system, you're probably not actually aware of the process. I can assure you that, mathematically, this must be a similar process to what I'm most familiar with. If they were working with raw data that had not been manipulated then you'd probably end up with predictions of the climate being toadstool hamburger no later than last purple Wednesday. It's not a perfect world and there are near infinite data points to be considered if you want to try for perfection - good luck with that.
Hmm... Just to give some insight, you know - in most other Western nations, things like abortion, gay marriage, and reasonable taxation aren't even debated by the right - maybe on the far right. Maybe. As for the ACA, that's a boon to corporate insurance companies and the industrial medical complex (I can't believe I just used those words, in a sentence, and together - but I lack a better phase). His intentions might have been liberal with that one, I'm not sure if I'm qualified to speculate, but the results are less than stellar.
If you look at it from a strictly American view then, sure, I guess you could call him a liberal, if only barely, but I'd think that's disingenuous. Our politics have gotten so screwed over the past fifty years or so that, really, we're kind of behind the times - in areas where we should be leaders. In short, assuming it's exclusively through an American lens, then I think you described it fairly well. He's as liberal as Bush was conservative. I can agree with that.
I figured I'd check, after all there's some chance you might be right and I could be wrong. Lemme have a look at Wikipedia... Can we assume they're factual?
Hmm... Seems to indicate what I said was true.:/ Now, I do have a fuzzy and frail memory but I don't think I got that one wrong - at least according to Wikipedia. It's a long read but basically the Arabs (of which the Palestinians are a member group) all got together and decided they were going to sweep the Jews into the sea but they didn't want that war - 'cause it'd be a war of extermination... Well, that's what they said, at any rate. It did not go well for them, as I recall.
Now, how about the Roman bit... Do I need to dig that out of Wikipedia for you too, or? The Roman dude's name was Hadrian, as I recall. I can do your history research for you, if you want. It's probably best that you do it yourself. It could have been a different one but I think he was the one that decided to call it Palestine 'cause he was hoping for a "final solution" to the Jewish insurgents by completely stripping them of their identity or something like that.
So, maybe Wikipedia is wrong and maybe Hadrian didn't actually rename it as Palestine and it's just some sort of conspiracy. I'm not sure how the facts are misrepresenting anything. Mayhap it is you who've been subjected to misinformation or, maybe, you just don't like Jews? I dunno... You could be a skinhead. It wouldn't surprise me, given the quality and tone of your other posts.
'Cause my VPN is somehow eating the script that lets me login and I'm too lazy to cut/paste and then open the reply in a new window and paste it there.:/
Err... The writing style should be kind of evident. Only KGIII types that much drivel.;-) I guess it's not that evident but, well, I forgot to sign it. This seems to happen around the same time. I've switched to using SurfEasy as my VPN and just using it in the browser. Well, Opera - bless their heart, decides to eat some JavaScript to save me some bandwidth (even though I have "unlimited" bandwidth). I am unable to find that setting and disable it. Try like I might...
Mostly, I just forgot to sign it. I usually do, I figure it that if I said it, even if wrong, I own it. I don't usually post as AC but, strangely enough, SurfEasy thinks I should or that I should just work around it. Oddly, they'll be fine in an hour or two.
In the scale of things, it wasn't all that odd for the computer that I had in my house, counting all the peripherals, was more costly than my new car in the driveway. I think my first laptop was about $10,000 and had an external tape drive (that had an internal 40 MB HDD IIRC and used proprietary tapes), had a docking station, had an external modem, and I think it had an internal 40 GB drive as well as the ability to use an external monitor.
The PC on my desk was only slightly less expensive and I think that's because I'd opted to upgrade some of the boards - I'd a whopping 33 MHz as I recall. I'm not able to recall if that was the same laptop that also required an external power supply or not. This would have been sometime around 1990. I'd bought an extra docking station so that I had one at home and one at work. I think it must have been just a bit after 1990, actually? I could be conflating two of them in my head.
My car was probably about $10,000 or so and likely new at the time. The laptop, with the docking stations and the extras was about that same price. The desktop was less but made the total value certainly higher than my car. At one point, you could even buy insurance for your computer. There were some colorful insurance claims at the time.
I guess the point is that they probably were prohibitively expensive for some. It used to be that you'd dress in your Sunday finest to go on a plane. It was an event and damned expensive. So, yeah, they were prohibitively expensive - it wasn't just people saying that. It just ended up being less expensive as the number grew. They moved from things for the upper-middle class, to the middle-class, to the working poor, and now even poor people probably have at least one working computer. Well, poor people in my country.
I was a drinking man then. I stomped across the street and bought alcohol. The dude in the lobby told me the county line was right in the center of the highway that ran in front of the hotel. I made a point out of drinking double, just out of spite. I think there ought to be some sort of application that you can get for your phone that tells you if you're in a dry town or dry county or if you'll be going into or through one. That way you can prepare. It should probably be tied into the national emergency system!
Slashdot Mirror
I also think they're making some assumptions here. I know of no case where two mutually combative persons engaging in fisticuffs were violated, ever. If they failed to stop or resisted arrest then, sure. However, if they consented? I know of no cases that have been prosecuted. There may be an exception to this for domestic violence assaults though I'm not sure that the victim would have ever really given consent or was of sound enough mind to give informed consent in those cases.
Norm? No. Most people are cowards, at heart. I do think it should be legal, however. Yes, I think two individuals should have the right to self-determination. I think they should be of sound mind when making that choice. Hell, I'm pretty sure it's not even prosecuted in my state unless you kill someone.
I'd enjoy an application like this, not to fight (I'm too old for that, these days). I'd love to go watch. Two meatsticks kicking the shit out of each other is great entertainment.
I do have multiple A&B charges on my record and one conviction and two losses in civil court. I've been the meatstick kicking the shit out of someone before. Sometimes, it was not consensual in some sense but the State allowed a defense of a third party's defense by statute. The criminal aspect, in the most interesting event, was when he was no longer putting up a defense and I sat on his chest while slapping him over and over again saying, "So you like to hit women? How do you like being my bitch?" *sighs* I spent a night in jail and lost in civil court. It gets worse but that's too long to type out here.
That should not be legal. In the above, I violated the law and was properly punished for it - including a rather large financial settlement that involved him and another party. However, if I'd not gone that far - I'd have been perfectly legal. I do think that I should be allowed to consent to a fight. I'd even go so far as to say that I should be allowed to consent to a fight involving weapons.
I think, in my state, they drop the charges if there's no complaint filed. So, the cops may arrest you (unlikely) but if it was mutual they're probably not going to do anything about it. Domestic violence is a different charge and doesn't require the victim to even testify.
I'll get one of the teachers to look into it for me. i'm just a resident upholding my end of the social contract. I'm sure one of them will be happy to take care of it for me. There's something to be said for living in a small community.
Yes, yes I did mean intrinsically. I blame maybe being a little high, tired, and stupid. :D
I now have two turbines, the second was put in during the late summer. I live in the woods. I'm also on the side of a mountain, when home. They're also in a clearing. But, it's still pretty woodsy. I have solar as well. I now create more power than I consume. I'm unlikely to really "break even" with upgrades and maintaining them but that's not why I did it.
The power company doesn't have to pay me for the power that I create but they do have to give me credit. I can then sell those credits or I can donate them to a local school (or charity) and write down the amount on my state tax bill. It's not that much of a clearing either but the trees will never get tall and there's an obscene amount of wind power on the side of the mountain. They're up above my place so they're at a higher elevation.
There's a solar and wind guy down in Starks, does a good job and took care of the whole process for me. A portion of my basement is now its own separate room and houses some racks full of batteries and all of the equipment is in there. I'm a bit tired or I'd go through my back posts. I've shared pics of the partial setup in the past.
My vehicles are, for the most part, efficient for what I do. I don't own a Prius or anything but I do plan on picking up the new model of Tesla that has a 500 mile range. That will be enough to get me to town and back as well as remain heated during a crisis involving snow or ice - should I get caught in a squall or blizzard and be taken by surprise. It happens up there.
It's not looking likely that I'll be home at all this winter. So I won't truly be able to say that I have enough power for winter consumption but I should based on prior history. Obviously, I've still got a mains connection. Yes, I do have diesel backup and a permitted underground storage tank. However, I'm not really some ecological disaster that is hell bent on destroying Mother Nature. I'm kind of fond of her, that's why I moved there.
I just figured some reality from someone who actually does live in the woods might be pertinent. I'm pretty sure that the OP, up the thread, was just trolling. Ah well, I didn't have anything better to do.
Nominally they were against the Muslims but, no, I've never thought that was the real reason. I've always assumed it to be a land and power grab with some intrigue being because the power grab wasn't actually always where they were crusading. I believe that I've also heard a theory that it was a way to get a collective going (one of the early crusades) in an effort to reunite Rome but I'd not dare make an authoritative statement on that.
That'd be why I put the "final solution" in quotes. It was mostly tongue in cheek. He did want some of them eliminated, though. I forget the name of the fort but they had that under siege for quite a while before the Romans built a giant dirt ramp up the top of it and were going to attack the following day - while doing the Roman thing of sealing them in. The Jews killed themselves though there's rumor of a mother with two children who survived by hiding in the water supply cave system.
The historians tend to agree that the reason for doing so was because he wanted to alienate them from their identity and, you know, get them to stop rebelling. One group in particular, the Assines (spelling) I think, were a particular thorn in their side for a while. They were pretty dedicated, some of them.
I watch way too many history documentaries. I don't remember all the names and places, I sure as hell don't remember the dates. They're watched for entertainment, not for study. Documentaries is about all I watch, actually. I try to get them from a variety of sources because there's a lot of propaganda in some of them. My current "thing" is finding barely translated WWII documentaries (made post fall of the Iron Curtain) from Russians. They're pretty good. Still right full of some really selective history but good, nonetheless. You can tell when Putin came into office. The documentaries became even more selective with their content.
The USSR gave out millions and millions of medals after the Great Patriotic War. But, I digress - I usually do.
Wow... I'll sell you a pair of socks for 1,000,000,000 and, tomorrow, I'll (really, I'm an honest person) buy that pair of socks back from you for 900.000.000. It costs money to launder money, you know. You needn't wash the socks.
That should say that my ISP expressly has no bandwidth limits.
My ISP expressly has no limits on my DSL service. They're the exception. Pretty much everywhere else, I've not once bought, "Unlimited." A number of times, I have purchased, "Unlimited*." When I purchase the one with the asterisk, I read the fine print and then don't sign if I don't agree to it. My eyesight isn't even the greatest any more but the print is never so fine that I can't read it. I will sit there and read every single page before signing a contract - in some cases. I'm almost certainly going to read it if it says, "Unlimited*" because I want to know what those limits really are.
Back in the day, with POTS, if you left your phone off the hook then you were probably stopping others from making a call. They'd probably come punch you in the nuts. You're just young and don't actually know any history.
I hold my Ph.D in Applied Mathematics. Of course I'm not a scientist. I am a mathematician, I tell scientists that they're wrong!
Err... Sorry, I just like saying that. I've never actually had cause to actually tell a scientist that they were really wrong but some of my undergrad time was spent checking the maths for other disciplines, some of which was not entirely correct. So, maybe, sort of, kind of accurate. I guess...
I don't haul often, maybe a half dozen times a year. I've a two-car trailer that I haul around to take cars to shows during the summer if I'm being less than lazy. I prefer to just drive them because that's why I bought them and I don't actually own any trailer queens. If I can't or won't drive it then I don't want it.
Because of this, I just suck it up and insure my license. Anything I drive is fully insured. It's costly. Anyhow, for me to tow two cars (both of which probably aren't all that efficient, to be honest, depending on which two they are) is much more efficient with my truck. I also plow with it. I've also done some work with it. Meh... I like it. It's not like I don't have more efficient things to drive that I do drive, when the situation warrants. I do live in the mountains of Maine.
You're welcome! :D Consider it motivation to buy yourself a book. There's only 56 of them in the school, cute little buggers. They invite me to plays and concerts. They can't sing and they act like monsters but I go. I usually take 'em to the above mentioned bowling alley afterwards. It's worth it - they send me cookies, Christmas cards, Valentine's Day cards, and usually Mrs. Turner's 4th grade class makes me some "art." I don't know what it is that they drew but I do hang them up for a while.
Anyhow, I had no idea that Scholastic did gift cards now? I will absolutely, certainly, look into this. There's no way I could get them Amazon cards, I just couldn't do it. I thought about it, long and hard, and decided that I just could not, in good faith, do that to them.
Also, I made sure the kids had enough to buy at least one book. $10 would still do that a couple of years ago. So, spending extra was *snickers* entirely up to you. *nods* I didn't make you do anything. The bookstore loved it and actually sold them to me at half price. Yeah, we had a good con going. I was nice about it. I gave extras so that the teachers could hand out the cards to those who had extra siblings or whatnot.
The nearest department store is down in Farmington and a Wal*Mart. I'm sure as hell not giving the kids gift cards to that store. I'd sooner just give 'em cash.
Sincere thanks. I wonder if they'll give me a discount if I buy enough of them?
I am not a client scientist (this is getting old). I can not opine on the quality of their work. However, if you'll allow me some presumption...
This is pure conjecture but how I would do it, I think, given what I know:
They take past data and crunch it - and then see what their models do with that data.
The check to see that the past data matches reality.
No? They change nonsensical data (like removing the guy that is driving drunk and backwards down a one way street).
The check again. No?
They adjust the model.
Match? Probably not. Close enough? Possibly (and for brevity, we're going with this 'cause this can take a while).
Take new and more current data.
Remove nonsensical data (like the guy driving drunk and backwards down a one way street).
Run model - this time allowing the model to make predictions as to possible outcomes.
Someone, somewhere, presumably picks the worst possible outcome and runs with it to a journalist. (Not a step in my business, I'm guessing at this point.)
And, I kind of hope that is how they're doing it - except for the last part, that seems like it's a bit hasty and alarmist. However, it does get them attention. It does get them increased funding.
I make no claims as to the validity of their science. I make no claims as to the validity of their data manipulations. I am not qualified to do so. I do know that you do manipulate both data and models to reflect reality. Why? 'Cause if you don't, shit doesn't work right. No matter how hard you try. This much data, with this many variables, is not a simple examine in high school physics or science class. I worked with far less data than these guys do and we had disk arrays that enabled us to work with nearly a TB of data on a pile of clustered servers in the late 1990s. Yes, a TB. In the 1990s. I imagine that's at least an order of magnitude less data than they're working with.
Which means, if they want to make predictions other than purple toadstool that they're probably going to have to do some manipulation of the data, make some presumptions, and model based on that. Is it perfect? I kind of doubt it. Fortunately, they've lots of data and lots of models and a whole shitton of compute cycles to throw at it.
And, again, this does not make me qualified to opine on the science. I can only comment, and did only comment, on the process.
Absolutely. I can neither confirm nor deny that they've achieved a sweet spot. I am not a climate scientist and will not opine on such. There's an acceptable degree of both model and data tweaking. Where that line is drawn is not something I'm qualified to opine on - my comment was in reference to the expressed displeasure of them manipulating the data. Such is not only normal, it is often required, when trying to achieve a result that will actually reflect reality. I make no claims as to the validity of the science for I am not a climate scientist.
They may be raping this data all to hell and back in an effort to make the models say what they want them to say for political or financial motives, that's seemingly what you're wanting me to say. And, it's true. They might be. It is unlikely, but they could be. However, I'd be far more concerned if they were using raw data without actually taking into account a whole host of other variables that then meant adjusting the numbers to suit.
They're attempting to model a chaotic system, not an exercise in a high school physics book.
I make no claims to the validity of the data nor of the models used by client scientists. I am not qualified to opine. I am, however, eminently qualified to opine on the processes involved in modeling large data sets and making predictions based on those results. Thus, I speak to that and that alone. I do not know enough about the subject, the data, or the models used to opine on climate science with any authority.
I think this is a fine point to interject. I am not, nor do I claim to be, a climate scientist. I am, on the other hand, a mathematician. My career was based on modeling from very large data sets. I modeled vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It's akin to attempting to model chaos.
I'll try to keep this simple.
See, you collect a whole bunch of data - everything from weather to time of day to a single individual can have an impact on the throughput of traffic. Then, you crunch this data and you end up with a model and can make predictions on it. Well, you shouldn't. This is why I'm retired today. See, you don't actually make predictions at that point. Instead - you return to the actual data and go out and make physical observations to confirm that your modeling of the existing data is accurate. If it's not then you change your algorithms AND manipulate the data until it matches reality.
Then, and only then, when you've managed to get them "close enough" can you make meaningful predictions and accurate proposals for things like route changes or configurations. You do, indeed, manipulate the data and the math used to crunch that data (an example is dropping outlying data points or optimizing for a specific period of time) until the data matches what you can verify as existing. The world is more than data points... At some point, it becomes so complex that there's absolutely zero chance at achieving perfection. That will not happen.
Now, I don't know shit about climate. I don't know if they're doing this right or wrong or if we're all going to die tomorrow. But I do know that massaging numbers and tweaking models to reflect reality is actually a damned good thing to do. In fact, doing so is why I'm retired and the company is still alive today. Not doing so is why you get some pretty screwed up traffic patterns that looked good on paper but suck in reality. That's what they get for hiring the least expensive companies. Yes, it takes more time, yes, it is more expensive. However, it's not at all unusual to manipulate data to make a model match reality. In fact, if you want to do a good job, it's pretty much a requirement and no - it will never be perfect. We simply can't account for all eventualities. You aim for a 95th percentile or greater in traffic modeling (even less for pedestrian traffic) and call it good.
So, there are probably all sorts of legitimate complaints about climate science. Data manipulation is not one of them. I'd be much more concerned to find out that they were relying on raw data without any manipulation and then comparisons with reality to determine which adjustments need to be made. If no adjustments had to be made, I'd call it straight up bullshit.
Err... End rant! Carry on with the bitch fest but, really, unless you've attempted to model a chaotic system, you're probably not actually aware of the process. I can assure you that, mathematically, this must be a similar process to what I'm most familiar with. If they were working with raw data that had not been manipulated then you'd probably end up with predictions of the climate being toadstool hamburger no later than last purple Wednesday. It's not a perfect world and there are near infinite data points to be considered if you want to try for perfection - good luck with that.
Hmm... Just to give some insight, you know - in most other Western nations, things like abortion, gay marriage, and reasonable taxation aren't even debated by the right - maybe on the far right. Maybe. As for the ACA, that's a boon to corporate insurance companies and the industrial medical complex (I can't believe I just used those words, in a sentence, and together - but I lack a better phase). His intentions might have been liberal with that one, I'm not sure if I'm qualified to speculate, but the results are less than stellar.
If you look at it from a strictly American view then, sure, I guess you could call him a liberal, if only barely, but I'd think that's disingenuous. Our politics have gotten so screwed over the past fifty years or so that, really, we're kind of behind the times - in areas where we should be leaders. In short, assuming it's exclusively through an American lens, then I think you described it fairly well. He's as liberal as Bush was conservative. I can agree with that.
I figured I'd check, after all there's some chance you might be right and I could be wrong. Lemme have a look at Wikipedia... Can we assume they're factual?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hmm... Seems to indicate what I said was true. :/ Now, I do have a fuzzy and frail memory but I don't think I got that one wrong - at least according to Wikipedia. It's a long read but basically the Arabs (of which the Palestinians are a member group) all got together and decided they were going to sweep the Jews into the sea but they didn't want that war - 'cause it'd be a war of extermination... Well, that's what they said, at any rate. It did not go well for them, as I recall.
Now, how about the Roman bit... Do I need to dig that out of Wikipedia for you too, or? The Roman dude's name was Hadrian, as I recall. I can do your history research for you, if you want. It's probably best that you do it yourself. It could have been a different one but I think he was the one that decided to call it Palestine 'cause he was hoping for a "final solution" to the Jewish insurgents by completely stripping them of their identity or something like that.
So, maybe Wikipedia is wrong and maybe Hadrian didn't actually rename it as Palestine and it's just some sort of conspiracy. I'm not sure how the facts are misrepresenting anything. Mayhap it is you who've been subjected to misinformation or, maybe, you just don't like Jews? I dunno... You could be a skinhead. It wouldn't surprise me, given the quality and tone of your other posts.
'Cause my VPN is somehow eating the script that lets me login and I'm too lazy to cut/paste and then open the reply in a new window and paste it there. :/
Err... The writing style should be kind of evident. Only KGIII types that much drivel. ;-) I guess it's not that evident but, well, I forgot to sign it. This seems to happen around the same time. I've switched to using SurfEasy as my VPN and just using it in the browser. Well, Opera - bless their heart, decides to eat some JavaScript to save me some bandwidth (even though I have "unlimited" bandwidth). I am unable to find that setting and disable it. Try like I might...
Mostly, I just forgot to sign it. I usually do, I figure it that if I said it, even if wrong, I own it. I don't usually post as AC but, strangely enough, SurfEasy thinks I should or that I should just work around it. Oddly, they'll be fine in an hour or two.
Ah well...
KGIII
In the scale of things, it wasn't all that odd for the computer that I had in my house, counting all the peripherals, was more costly than my new car in the driveway. I think my first laptop was about $10,000 and had an external tape drive (that had an internal 40 MB HDD IIRC and used proprietary tapes), had a docking station, had an external modem, and I think it had an internal 40 GB drive as well as the ability to use an external monitor.
The PC on my desk was only slightly less expensive and I think that's because I'd opted to upgrade some of the boards - I'd a whopping 33 MHz as I recall. I'm not able to recall if that was the same laptop that also required an external power supply or not. This would have been sometime around 1990. I'd bought an extra docking station so that I had one at home and one at work. I think it must have been just a bit after 1990, actually? I could be conflating two of them in my head.
My car was probably about $10,000 or so and likely new at the time. The laptop, with the docking stations and the extras was about that same price. The desktop was less but made the total value certainly higher than my car. At one point, you could even buy insurance for your computer. There were some colorful insurance claims at the time.
I guess the point is that they probably were prohibitively expensive for some. It used to be that you'd dress in your Sunday finest to go on a plane. It was an event and damned expensive. So, yeah, they were prohibitively expensive - it wasn't just people saying that. It just ended up being less expensive as the number grew. They moved from things for the upper-middle class, to the middle-class, to the working poor, and now even poor people probably have at least one working computer. Well, poor people in my country.
I was a drinking man then. I stomped across the street and bought alcohol. The dude in the lobby told me the county line was right in the center of the highway that ran in front of the hotel. I made a point out of drinking double, just out of spite. I think there ought to be some sort of application that you can get for your phone that tells you if you're in a dry town or dry county or if you'll be going into or through one. That way you can prepare. It should probably be tied into the national emergency system!
I don't know. Try Google.