If he is wrong, please explain. Now it is just your yes against his no. You are claiming something without proof -- you do not even provide an argument. Instead of saying you can do that equally with the christian bible, please do it. *That* would actually be an argument.
Did he provide that as *the* reason? I just tried your Ultra Hal because of what you wrote, but it failed rather spectacularly. The first two tries it failed in its first response. The third time I accepted some of the weirder responses, but Ultra Hal definitely cannot keep a conversation going (without clearly showing it is a chat bot). However, I was rather disappointed by the low quality of the contestants of the Loebner prize, so maybe it's just me.
Like so many people these days, you confuse climate with weather. In your first two examples you talk about weather forecasts, not climate forecasts. The third example came directly from your imagination.
I don't think this is going anywhere. You are lying, because you *are* making claims. When I point out where you are wrong you just ignore it as if nothing happened. Instead you start attacking and insulting me personally. I think I should spell it out or else I fear you will twist my words. You were making this claim:
Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming
I replied that consensus means very little in science. Even if it did mean something, there is no consensus. As proof for my statement I referred to a list in "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)". You can also find the list at http://www.petitionproject.org/. At that website they clarify what the purpose of that petition is. I'll quote:
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Furthermore:
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
You are clearly wrong in this case.
In your last reply you made the claim and I'll quote:
There are no '30,000 scientists' that dispute climate change. There are 30,000 names, people who signed up via web form, without any kind of verification of who they really are.
You are lying in the face of evidence and you don't even know what you are talking about. The petition cannot be signed through a web form. Read here how the petition is circulated: http://www.petitionproject.org/how_petition_is_circulated.php.
You are clearly wrong in this case too.
You are accusing me of being a hypocrite for politely asking why you made ad hominem attacks. I didn't "attack" you, I just informed you about what kind of impression you made. I left room for you to correct me. You were shouting in your very first reply in this thread. It didn't look like you were thinking clearly. And I wasn't referring to you calling me a fanatic without a valid reason. I was referring to you ignoring a solid report full of references to actual scientific research, just because one of the lead authors happens to have ties to big corporations. I don't have to prove the science is bad. I will just refer to scientific research that shows it for me. Perhaps one day you will get over yourself and will accept that people can have different viewpoints based on the same facts.
Why do you keep asking for people to prove a negative? You are making the claims, not me! You really cannot expect people to be convinced by your "arguments" if you continue being so, well, unreasonable.
And why the ad hominem attacks? Come up with facts, counter arguments, not with ideology. The NIPCC report is full with references to actual scientific research, executed by people who aren't dependent on echoing what the IPCC wants to hear. The fact that Singer is one of the lead authors doesn't affect the research one bit.
And what about the more than 30,000 scientists? Admit that your claim about there being consensus was just plain wrong.
30,000 QUALIFIED people (scientists) don't agree with you. See http://www.petitionproject.org/. Read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" (available from http://www.nipccreport.com/) for all the arguments and references to scientific publications.
The peer review process in climate science is heavily corrupted. If everyone peer reviews like minded colleagues peer review loses its meaning. Have you ever read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" (available from http://www.nipccreport.com/) or do you too only read what confirms what you already believe to be true?
You sound like an activist -- too passionate and not thinking clearly anymore. You should be a bit more precise in your wording. Read his post again. He wasn't saying there's no link between CO2 and global warming. He wrote and I'll quote "there is no really good scientific evidence of a threat from CO2". Which is true.
You may come up with forecasts published by the IPCC (a political, not a scientific organisation) based on computer models which are so crude even the sign of the projected temperature change is unreliable.
In science consensus means *nothing*. If you cannot show the evidence you have no case. And a computer model is no evidence. You are the one who claims something, so *you* are the one who needs to come up with proof.
However, the funny part is that there is no consensus about the link between _anthropogenic_ CO2 and climate change at all. You may want to read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" to get an idea what independent scientists think about the matter. It contains a petition which is pretty strongly worded, signed by more than 30,000 scientists. You can download the full report from http://www.nipccreport.com/.
If you don't agree, please come up with some more convincing argument. Besides, they were not having some "issues", they never got where they wanted to get.
Except that
- copied games cannot be played
- PS3s with such an old firmware version are difficult to get by (if at all)
- the PS3 won't let you get online unless your firmware is recent enough
- some games require a firmware that is newer than a certain revision
So, what the GP wrote is true: the PS3 remains unhacked.
Please refrain from commenting if you haven't read his paper. You can scream that it's bullshit, but you better explain why. You're being silly -- not even DRM proponents deny that there's content protection technology in Vista. Read Gutmann's paper if you want to have at least some pointers to articles that give you all the examples you need (examples of people who could not do something they wanted to do, because of Vista's DRM).
You either haven't read Gutmann's paper nor seen his slides or are deliberately spreading FUD yourself. Gutmann's paper goes much deeper than just spreading fear. Just by saying that others have "debunked" his paper doesn't make it so. I haven't read all the articles that supposedly debunk his claims, but what I did read and the links you gave all ignore his central point. The only thing they do is employing diversion tactics by focussing on less important details, some of which he later corrected and what you apparently blame him for (?!). Here's what he wrote in his response to George Ou and Ed Bott, the authors of the articles you provided links to:
In all this mass of trivia there's one major thing missing that would justify the title that he's chosen to use: Any attempt at all to address the central thesis of the content protection analysis, that trying to seal shut (portions of) the historically open PC architecture in the name of DRM is technically a really bad idea, and one that's bound to fail. As Bruce Schneier put it, "Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet". So the DRM will fail, and all that'll be left is the collateral damage. I'm not sure if this is merely an accident or deliberate, but in his entire multi-page writeup Ed has completely, utterly failed to address the central issue of content protection/DRM. That's quite a major target to miss, completely.
Yes, $60 is too much. In Europe it's €60... However, you should learn where to buy your PS3 games. play.com is the best place I've found to date. They charge no cost for shipment to certain countries. I bought LittleBigPlanet there for €42 one month after it was released. Now it's €35. Unfortunately play.com doesn't seem to ship games to the US. But eBay isn't a bad place either. Two days ago I won an auction for Motorstorm Pacific Rift (new) for €31 (including shipment).
Would you care to back that claim up with some references? From what I've read about anti-depressants it's not even possible to cause "long and lasting damage" by stopping suddenly. To the contrary, some anti-depressants may not be used longer than a certain period because they cause irreversible brain damage. Maybe you meant that by stopping suddenly the depression will come back in full force, causing the depressed person to commit suicide? That's certainly long and lasting damage...
He said "real severe clinical depression". That's the 1/3 you're talking about where the drugs work. No, I said 1/3 of the people with clinical depression.
If they were only handed to the people that genuinely need them you'd find anti-depressants work quite well, which seems to be what TFA is saying. Define "genuinely need them". I would expect that if you knew the case of depression I'm referring to, you would agree that that person genuinely needs anti-depressants. However, they don't work at all for that person. Perhaps you should read TFA again, because it is saying no such thing. You sound misleading to me. Here's the conclusion of the abstract (for the people who can't be bothered to RTFA):
Drug-placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication.
No, seriously, he's right. No, he's not. I didn't reply to the first post in the thread ("Thinking that you're going to not be depressed anymore makes you less depressed!"), because that seems to work for depressed people. The post I was replying to used the word "sincerely" and I object to that. It has nothing to do with sincerely trying or not. A depressed person on a bad day can feel so bad that they can hardly move. Using words like "sincerely" suggests (to me) that those people are faking or doing something similar. It shows an absolute lack of empathy or ignorance.
If someone has real severe clinical depression, drugs are the only scientifically proven way to get back to leading a normal life. When you make broad generalisations like that, at least back it up with some evidence. From what I have read about depression (before this article), anti-depressants don't work for at least 1/3 of people with clinical depression. In another 1/3 they work only temporarily. When you would bother to read TFA you would see that there are more "scientifically [accepted] way[s]" than only drugs.
Don't complain about a reference, it's just my word against yours.
I happen to be close to someone with a serious depression. But I don't understand your last statement. In what way is depression *not* all in your head? I know how self-destructive a depressed person can be. I also know they drain energy from the people around them. That they can feel physical pain and get into panics. However, I don't see how that's not all something happening in the head of the depressed person.
This is something agreed upon by a very large majority of scientists across the globe. That's what certain people want you to believe. "There's consensus, so you don't have to think about it anymore. Just pay your CO2 tax."
Personally, even if they are over-reacting, polluting the environment is a very bad thing. I agree. Except that CO2 is not a pollutant. I'm amazed how many people at Slashdot fall for this lie. The amount of CO2 we produce is insignificant, compared to what the oceans give off. More CO2 is only a positive thing (higher crop yeilds, less water needded to grow crops in dry areas).
Since we have only one planet that can sustain human life, I think we should err on the side of caution. I don't want to err at all. Certainly not when politicians use it to make me pay more eco-tax. At least in The Netherlands people pay an extra tax for certain products. Of course this tax also taxes VAT (tax over tax).
If it means you have to spend more on fuel and new energy technology, well, we had it pretty good for a while. I don't want to pay more just because.
If you cannot attack his viewpoints you can always attack himself... Nice try.
First, this isn't about bashing Microsoft. Second, don't suggest Microsoft isn't opposing this to keep their profit as high as possible.
Thank you for your reply, but it didn't help much. You wrote:
In the case of MS they found that yes it helped with pain but over time it worsened some symptoms such as balance and cognitive skills.
The CNN article you linked to does not mention any negative effect. It was just not clear if there was any measurable effect. You made it sound like Cannabis can have a permanent effect on cognitive skills. BTW who is talking about Cannabis being the next miracle cure here?
Could you be so kind to cite your sources? "They" doesn't sound very convincing.
You suggest Cannabis has a permanent effect on cognitive skills. If true, that would be *major* news.
Slashdot Mirror
If he is wrong, please explain. Now it is just your yes against his no. You are claiming something without proof -- you do not even provide an argument. Instead of saying you can do that equally with the christian bible, please do it. *That* would actually be an argument.
Did he provide that as *the* reason? I just tried your Ultra Hal because of what you wrote, but it failed rather spectacularly. The first two tries it failed in its first response. The third time I accepted some of the weirder responses, but Ultra Hal definitely cannot keep a conversation going (without clearly showing it is a chat bot). However, I was rather disappointed by the low quality of the contestants of the Loebner prize, so maybe it's just me.
Like so many people these days, you confuse climate with weather. In your first two examples you talk about weather forecasts, not climate forecasts. The third example came directly from your imagination.
Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming
I replied that consensus means very little in science. Even if it did mean something, there is no consensus. As proof for my statement I referred to a list in "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)". You can also find the list at http://www.petitionproject.org/. At that website they clarify what the purpose of that petition is. I'll quote:
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Furthermore:
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
You are clearly wrong in this case.
In your last reply you made the claim and I'll quote:
There are no '30,000 scientists' that dispute climate change. There are 30,000 names, people who signed up via web form, without any kind of verification of who they really are.
You are lying in the face of evidence and you don't even know what you are talking about. The petition cannot be signed through a web form. Read here how the petition is circulated: http://www.petitionproject.org/how_petition_is_circulated.php. You are clearly wrong in this case too.
You are accusing me of being a hypocrite for politely asking why you made ad hominem attacks. I didn't "attack" you, I just informed you about what kind of impression you made. I left room for you to correct me. You were shouting in your very first reply in this thread. It didn't look like you were thinking clearly. And I wasn't referring to you calling me a fanatic without a valid reason. I was referring to you ignoring a solid report full of references to actual scientific research, just because one of the lead authors happens to have ties to big corporations. I don't have to prove the science is bad. I will just refer to scientific research that shows it for me. Perhaps one day you will get over yourself and will accept that people can have different viewpoints based on the same facts.
Why do you keep asking for people to prove a negative? You are making the claims, not me! You really cannot expect people to be convinced by your "arguments" if you continue being so, well, unreasonable.
And why the ad hominem attacks? Come up with facts, counter arguments, not with ideology. The NIPCC report is full with references to actual scientific research, executed by people who aren't dependent on echoing what the IPCC wants to hear. The fact that Singer is one of the lead authors doesn't affect the research one bit.
And what about the more than 30,000 scientists? Admit that your claim about there being consensus was just plain wrong.
30,000 QUALIFIED people (scientists) don't agree with you. See http://www.petitionproject.org/. Read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" (available from http://www.nipccreport.com/) for all the arguments and references to scientific publications.
The peer review process in climate science is heavily corrupted. If everyone peer reviews like minded colleagues peer review loses its meaning. Have you ever read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" (available from http://www.nipccreport.com/) or do you too only read what confirms what you already believe to be true?
You sound like an activist -- too passionate and not thinking clearly anymore. You should be a bit more precise in your wording. Read his post again. He wasn't saying there's no link between CO2 and global warming. He wrote and I'll quote "there is no really good scientific evidence of a threat from CO2". Which is true.
You may come up with forecasts published by the IPCC (a political, not a scientific organisation) based on computer models which are so crude even the sign of the projected temperature change is unreliable.
In science consensus means *nothing*. If you cannot show the evidence you have no case. And a computer model is no evidence. You are the one who claims something, so *you* are the one who needs to come up with proof.
However, the funny part is that there is no consensus about the link between _anthropogenic_ CO2 and climate change at all. You may want to read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" to get an idea what independent scientists think about the matter. It contains a petition which is pretty strongly worded, signed by more than 30,000 scientists. You can download the full report from http://www.nipccreport.com/.
If you don't agree, please come up with some more convincing argument. Besides, they were not having some "issues", they never got where they wanted to get.
Except that
- copied games cannot be played
- PS3s with such an old firmware version are difficult to get by (if at all)
- the PS3 won't let you get online unless your firmware is recent enough
- some games require a firmware that is newer than a certain revision
So, what the GP wrote is true: the PS3 remains unhacked.
Please refrain from commenting if you haven't read his paper. You can scream that it's bullshit, but you better explain why. You're being silly -- not even DRM proponents deny that there's content protection technology in Vista. Read Gutmann's paper if you want to have at least some pointers to articles that give you all the examples you need (examples of people who could not do something they wanted to do, because of Vista's DRM).
In all this mass of trivia there's one major thing missing that would justify the title that he's chosen to use: Any attempt at all to address the central thesis of the content protection analysis, that trying to seal shut (portions of) the historically open PC architecture in the name of DRM is technically a really bad idea, and one that's bound to fail. As Bruce Schneier put it, "Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet". So the DRM will fail, and all that'll be left is the collateral damage. I'm not sure if this is merely an accident or deliberate, but in his entire multi-page writeup Ed has completely, utterly failed to address the central issue of content protection/DRM. That's quite a major target to miss, completely.
[...] CO2 and other poisonous gases.
CO2 is not poisonous... It helps make the environment greener :-P
Yes, $60 is too much. In Europe it's €60... However, you should learn where to buy your PS3 games. play.com is the best place I've found to date. They charge no cost for shipment to certain countries. I bought LittleBigPlanet there for €42 one month after it was released. Now it's €35. Unfortunately play.com doesn't seem to ship games to the US. But eBay isn't a bad place either. Two days ago I won an auction for Motorstorm Pacific Rift (new) for €31 (including shipment).
Would you care to back that claim up with some references? From what I've read about anti-depressants it's not even possible to cause "long and lasting damage" by stopping suddenly. To the contrary, some anti-depressants may not be used longer than a certain period because they cause irreversible brain damage. Maybe you meant that by stopping suddenly the depression will come back in full force, causing the depressed person to commit suicide? That's certainly long and lasting damage...
I happen to be close to someone with a serious depression. But I don't understand your last statement. In what way is depression *not* all in your head? I know how self-destructive a depressed person can be. I also know they drain energy from the people around them. That they can feel physical pain and get into panics. However, I don't see how that's not all something happening in the head of the depressed person.
Spoken by someone who has no clue how bad depression can be.
If you cannot attack his viewpoints you can always attack himself... Nice try.
First, this isn't about bashing Microsoft. Second, don't suggest Microsoft isn't opposing this to keep their profit as high as possible.
Could you be so kind to cite your sources? "They" doesn't sound very convincing. You suggest Cannabis has a permanent effect on cognitive skills. If true, that would be *major* news.
The videos played fine for me in Firefox 2.0.0.6 using Shockwave Flash 9.0 r48 on Fedora Core 3.